Public Bill Committee

[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Amendment moved [this day]: No. 63, in clause 77, page 52, line 6, at end insert ‘or’. [Robert Neill.]

Christopher Chope: I remind hon. Members that with this we are taking amendment No. 64, in clause 77, page 52, line 8, leave out from ‘districts’ to end of line 9.

Bob Neill: This morning we discussed whether there is a hidden and perhaps unrecognised demand for parish councils in London. I maintain that there is no evidence of that: there has been nothing on it from any of the representative bodies, nor from any of the major academic commentators such as Tony Travers, nor from the representatives of London’s civic, residents and amenities societies. None of them has suggested that there is a hidden demand that is not being picked up on.
The question is not just one of demand—there are also some practical issues on how parish councils will work in a city where there is no tradition of them. The report of the Commission on London Governance drew attention to concerns that are not unique to the Opposition: how parish councils will interface in practice with ward councillors and with existing devolved structures in London, and how duplication and confusion of roles can be avoided.
I refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. I recognise that, particularly in London, there are still villages and communities that have strong senses of identity. I know that as well as anyone, because my own constituency is full of such communities—Hayes, Bickley, Chislehurst and so on. The borough of Bromley as a whole is like that too—there are some 80 residents associations in the borough, all of which are active and which push for their area. But they work satisfactorily in co-operation with their ward councillors, and not one has ever said that there was a need for a parish council to advance its interests.

Patrick Hall: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the power to opt for creation of parish councils in urban areas should not apply to London, because there is no experience of such councils in recent decades. However, that logic applies to all urban areas that have not had any such recent tradition. Logically, his position should not be restricted to London but should apply to all urban areas, which would deny people everywhere the power to opt in. Why does not the hon. Gentleman push that logic?

Bob Neill: With respect, the hon. Gentleman puts it the wrong way round. The status quo is that London is in a different situation from the rest of the country. The Government are proposing to change it, but I am old-fashioned enough to think that the onus is always on those who propose to change the status quo to show a good and compelling reason for change. There is no evidence of such a reason.

David Burrowes: It occurs to me that if the Government’s intentions are fulfilled, empowerment may increase and flourish as a result of the Bill, in which case there would not necessarily be a need for parish councils.

Bob Neill: I think and hope that my hon. Friendis right. I am much in favour of neighbourhood empowerment. London boroughs, in different ways to suit their own circumstances, have done a great deal to produce empowerment at the sub-borough level, to use an ugly but convenient phrase. We should do more to encourage that.
 I have always been a strong advocate of ward councillors being given an enhanced role as champions of their communities. That was said by the Government to be explicit in the settlement of the Local Government Act 2000, when executives were created. The idea was that ward councillors were to be champions, and to fight for their communities. I would prefer more to be done to enhance that concept, with more powers for ward councillors to fulfil that role, which would enable them to fight for particular community concerns without the need to create an additional tier of bureaucracy. Unless it is carefully handled, the creation of parishes might create duplication and confusion as to the roles of the parish and of parish councillors compared with the role of ward councillors, particularly in London, where the communities that we are discussing are often not geographically discrete, in disparate areas, but overlap and are dense and highly urbanised, with a mobile and diverse population.
 Some local authorities give a devolved budget to their ward councillors to spend in their ward in the public realm, or on other works. That is true in my wife’s ward outside London, and it is a good idea. It empowers people who have a legitimate, democratic electoral mandate. Schemes run through various types of area committee and forum can also work well and I do not rule out that. London boroughs are doing a range of things. For example, Newham has an influential councillor scheme. There is a raft of mechanisms for dealing with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate legitimately and properly raised, without the need for the creation of parishes. Such legitimate demand as there is for engagement can be met by other means, without legislative change.
That leads us to some of the specific concerns raised by London Councils, which has not been entirely negative. It commissioned Alan Pike to write a useful discussion paper, “London: any place for parish councils?”, which is appended to its submissions to the Committee, I believe. The paper sets out the fact that there are arguments for greater community engagement and that in some parts of the country parishes work well, which is something I do not dispute. However, the paper also sets out in some considerable detail—more than we have time for today—the way in which London boroughs, in disparate ways to suit their own needs, fulfil much the same roles without the need further legislative provisions.
The majority of boroughs have some form of area, neighbourhood, or community council structure, and many have been commended for it. Waltham Forest has a community champion in its cabinet for each of its areas. In addition, Kingston upon Thames, a place known to Liberal Democrat Members, has a long-established neighbourhood structure. Havering, which was mentioned earlier, has worked for some time with a series of area committees. The point is that things can be done by other routes, without the need for the legislative change.
 The matter is summed up, it seems to me, in the Government’s discussion document titled, “Citizen Engagement and Public Services: Why Neighbourhoods Matter”. It states:
“It should be democratically elected local councillors who are advocates for their communities and represent the views of the public about the services they receive. Clearly giving councillors this role of neighbourhood leadership should strengthen local democracy.”
That is absolutely right, and I take it on board. The Commission on London Governance also took it on board very strongly when creating its report, which advocated the enhancement of the local champion role of the councillor. It is about enhancing the mandate of the existing ward councillor. I would rather have that than run the risk of the confusion that a parish-based system might create.
“Citizen Engagement and Public Services: Why Neighbourhoods Matter” observes and acknowledges that
“unduly extensive devolution to the most local level is unlikely to be effective or efficient”.
That is a useful phrase. The two passages that I have quoted, put together, provide a sensible warning. Mr. Pike’s consultation document states that
“this is an area where the Government has recognised the need for a cautious approach.”
We are urging the Government to be more cautious in the absence of compelling evidence of demand.
My final observation is that London Councils has flagged up some specific practical matters relating to how parishes might work in London, as well as other broad concerns. What if parishes, which might cover large estates, want to take on service delivery powers? How could that be set against a local authority’s existing arrangements? Apparently, parishes will have the power to raise a precept. What are the costs likely to be? What capital and revenue estimates have been made regarding setting up and administering parish councils? How would we deal with a situation in which a neighbourhood area that might be logical for a parish does not conform to the boundaries of wards, area committees, or local area agreements? How could all of those things be put together? There ought to be greater clarity on those matters before we proceed.
In a nutshell, our contention is that the case has manifestly not been made. The onus rests upon those who propose change. We hope to amend the Bill so that we do not create an unnecessary, if well-intentioned, disturbance to the governance structures of London boroughs.

Andrew Stunell: I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. In his own words, superficially it sounded of interest. It must be right to give local government and communities all the available, feasible options. Given our view of the matter, it follows that we shall not support the amendment. Options are good, prescription is bad. If Conservative Members used that as their guiding light when considering the Bill, they would see that the amendment does not conform to that approach.
 The hon. Gentleman said that there are places in London with neighbourhood councils, residents associations, area committees and community associations, as though we do not have such things outside London. We do, and we also have the option of parish councils. He is right that the vast majority of parish councils are in rural areas, or at least in areas that were rural when the councils were established; however, many are not. Reference has been made to the largest parish council in England, in Weston-super-Mare, which is quite definitely not in a rural area, and there are other substantial urban parish councils.
I do not want to suggest that many substantial parish councils will be set up in London; on the contrary, I suspect that many of them will be small—probably smaller than wards. I would like to draw the Committee’s attention to the only parish council in Stockport, which was created as a result of the Local Government Act 2000. It was one of the urban parishes that the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then running the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, was keen to see established, and was it petitioned for by local residents on a housing estate. It comprises about a third of one ward, out of 21 wards in Stockport borough. It is in my constituency and is now the parish council of Offerton Park. The Secretary of State saw fit to grant permission for it to be set up and it is now approaching its next round of elections.
The hon. Gentleman is right in one regard: parish councils can be an irritant in the system. Those people in the room who have parish councils are nodding and smiling, because they know that that is true, but that does not make the parish council a bad institution.

Alistair Burt: I find it more helpful to refer to my parish councils as the grit in the oyster, rather than an irritant. I think that that conveys the impression that we all seek to give to our parish councils.

Andrew Stunell: I suspect that their view is that quite often they are putting pearls before swine. [ Interruption. ] We rehearsed that.
My predecessor as Liberal Democrat spokesman tabled amendments to the Bill that became the Local Government Act 2000 to permit the creation of parishes. The relevant Minister said in Committee that our amendment was defective in about 19 different ways, but when it came to the House of Lords, the Government introduced proposals to allow urban parishes, which we were pleased to see. We also tabled amendments to introduce parishing in London, but unfortunately the Minister of the day did not see fit to extend the parish proposals to London. Naturally, I am pleased that seven years later, such a provision is coming forward.

Tom Brake: They are slow on the uptake.

Andrew Stunell: Well, I want to give credit where it is due. It is a long and winding road to Damascus but the Minister has eventually got there. That is fine—it is good to see.
To ensure that there is maximum choice for local democracy, and because we thought of it first, we strongly support the clause. We believe that the Government have got it right and that it is appropriate for it to be taken forward. I say to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that turkeys do not vote for Christmas and boroughs do not vote for parishes. They know that they are inconvenient and troublesome, which is why it is right that there should be the requirement of a review and the possibility of communities putting proposals to their boroughs for serious consideration rather than having to rely on the initiative and good will of local councils seeing fit to develop parishes. The provisions of the clause are substantially right.
 I wish to finish by saying something about the size and scale of communities. The definition of a community tends to depend on who is giving it. MPs tend to believe that a constituency is a community. Councillors tend to believe that a ward is a community and leaders of councils tend to think that council areas are communities. The real-life situation is that communities are much smaller than that. In the ward in which I live I can recognise four or five separate communities, although it appears to the outsider to be a continuous carpet of suburban development. There are different communities with different understandings of their position. I hope that when we consider parish proposals in the future we will recognise that and not make parishes fit a straitjacket of existing administrative boundaries simply because that is how people in the town hall or we in Parliament see the boundaries. That ability to tailor the lowest level of democratic representation to real communities is the valuable addition made by the clause.
If the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst presses the amendment we shall vote against it. I hope that the Government will stand firm and continue with this sensible provision.

Angela Smith: I have enjoyed the wide-ranging discussion on the amendment. I always enjoy contributions from the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, if only because he mentions Essex several times, not Bedfordshire, which gives us a balance in the Committee.
I find the hon. Gentleman’s arguments interesting. London is the only part of the country that does not have parishes and parish councils. Communities anywhere else in England have the opportunity, if they so wish, to create a parish council in appropriate circumstances. There is an anomaly, and I cannot see any reason for it to continue. I listened carefully to his arguments, and he said that London is different as it has no recent history of parishes. He was sort of saying, “Well, if you haven’t had this in the past, you can’t have it in the future,” but history and tradition have to have a starting point. He said that the character of London is different as it does not have parish councils. I wonder why he seeks to deny the residents of Badgers Mount or Pratts Bottom, in his constituency, the opportunity to have their own parish councils.

Bob Neill: Because they are not in my constituency. They are in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam).

Angela Smith: That just proves that no Minister should ever listen to her Whip.

Alistair Burt: Now that is the champagne moment.

Angela Smith: I thought that the champagne moment was the talk about oysters, but as the hon. Gentleman seems to be in the chair, as we say in Essex, we look forward to the end of the Committee when he will be buying the champagne.
There does seem to be an anomaly, and we see no reason why it should continue. It is only fair that Londoners should have the same right as anyone in the rest of the country to be represented by a parish council. We are not trying to impose this; the Government are not saying, “You must have a parish council in your area.” We are opening up choice to a community. Parish councils would be established in London only if there were wide-ranging support and local people genuinely wanted them. There would be the same opportunity in London as elsewhere to style a council and better reflect the urban area of a “community” or a “neighbourhood”. It would up to the area to do so. Experience in other parts of the UK does not give credibility to the argument that urban areas do not suit parish councils, or somehow cannot have parish councils. Councils can give a stronger voice to communities, helping to shape public services, and in some cases, to deliver public services in the areas in which they live.
One of the issues genuinely raised by hon. Members during the debate—the debate has been ongoing, and it arose during the evidence sessions as well—was the possibility of extremists or other groups using a parish council to isolate a community in an attempt to further their cause. The assurances that I have given so far to the Committee on the guidance to ensure that community cohesion should be taken into account should satisfy hon. Members on that point.
 There are parish councils in other urban areas of the country, for example, New Frankley in Birmingham, and Blakelaw and North Fenham in Newcastle-upon-Tyne. There is a commonality of issues for people who live in urban areas, just as there is for people who live in rural areas, who say that they would want to be represented by a parish council. We must also be sure that the opportunity is there for the principal council to refuse a permission for a parish council if it thinks that that is in the interests of the community—that a parish council would be damaging to community relations or community cohesion. If there are arrangements in a local area, such as community forums or neighbourhood committees, that the council feels give an adequate voice to those in the area, it might take that into account in deciding whether to grant or refuse permission for a parish council. It must clearly be a decision for the principal council to take, not for the Secretary of State as is the case now.
 We must ensure that parish councils do not become destabilising influences within the community. Under the requirements of the Bill, councils must have regard to the identities and interests of communities in their area. We will issue the statutory guidance that I mentioned, which includes the need for councils to have regard to community cohesion when making a decision about creating a parish. I cannot, however, give a guarantee to the Committee or anybody else that an election to any official body would not result in the election of councillors who hold extreme or unpleasant views, or that they could not form a majority on a parish council. All of us on the Committee recognise that we cannot dictate the outcome of elections, much as many of us would like to in our constituencies.
Councillor Kemp of the Local Government Association made comments in the evidence session with which most people would agree. He said that if there were a rise in extremism at parish council level, that would be as much the fault of the political parties collectively rather than of a particular local government system. It would not be a failure of structures or systems, but a political failure.
In the White Paper, we said:
“Uniquely communities in London are denied the option to form parishes. We intend to give them the same rights to have a parish council as the rest of the country. As with all other parts of the country, local authorities will need to consider the impact of community cohesion when deciding whether to create a parish in London.”
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked who supports that idea. Where has it come from? Who supports it? I always like to be helpful. The National Association of Local Councils supports the proposals.

Bob Neill: How many have they got in London?

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary position. The answer is “None, but they would like them.” That is the key; the legislation has not allowed London to have parish councils so far. The hon. Gentleman is getting cynical in his old age. London Councils, formerly the Association of London Government, supports the current proposal, although it has concerns. I listened carefully to the extracts from Mr. Pipe’s report, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I have read the report, and I wondered whether he wrote that prior to the publication of the Bill and prior to the evidence sessions. We have dealt with a lot of the concerns that he raised, and assurances about the guidance and the points that were raised were given.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving way. I shall do my best to forgive her for the unkindest cut of referring to my age. Does she accept that, yes, the Pipe report was written in advance and that the comments on community cohesion pick up on one of the concerns highlighted in the report? Will the Government, in issuing the guidance, also consider the other concerns? Those are: the impact upon other community engagement mechanisms, how parish councils are to be funded and how there should be linkages between any development of service delivery powers in the parishes as opposed to the boroughs.

Angela Smith: I will come on to those points. The hon. Gentleman’s first point was about the services to be provided. As now, that will be a matter of agreement with the principal council. Swanley town council, which is not too far from me, has, like a number of councils, a very impressive arrangement for leisure facilities that it provides in its area. There is an issue around service agreements between town or parish councils and the principal council.
The hon. Gentleman then asked who supports the proposed approach. London Councils supports it. Its current concern is to ensure that legislation effectively allows a London borough to refuse the creation of a parish on the grounds of community cohesion. We have addressed that. The Association of London Government, now London Councils, took part in the technical working group that we established in 2005 and which looked into the existing legislation. We will ensure that London Councils is afforded the opportunity to contribute to the guidance on the development of parishes.
The hon. Gentleman asked, who pays? Under previous clauses, we talked about the issue of precepts. It is open, and parish councils have precept-raising powers. The Government have no capping powers, and no intention to take them, unless widespread demand becomes evident. We would then, of course, reconsider the issue.
When the hon. Gentleman was speaking about the Pipe report, he used a phrase that I find most puzzling, “unduly extensive devolution”. What is that? If a local parish council wished to be created and the principal council decided it was in the interests of the community to do so, that would not be “unduly extensive”. Rather, to use a phrase of my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, it would be common sense.

Andrew Stunell: The Under-Secretary has a good case, but she is going a little over the top here. Only on Tuesday, her fellow Minister referred to “irresponsible” devolution, which came in for the same sort of criticism. Perhaps she could help us by saying what is the difference between “unduly extensive” and “irresponsible” devolution.

Angela Smith: Irresponsible is not common sense.

Bob Neill: I am interested in the Under-Secretary’s point, but may I help her out on this? I did not quote the words of Mr. Pipe.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

[Mr. Joe Bentonin the Chair]

Angela Smith: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. Just before I finish the point I was making, I need to defend myself against allegations of not knowing hon. Members’ constituencies. I suggested that Pratts Bottom and Badgers Mount were in the  constituency of the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, but he denied that vociferously. I can inform the Committee that they are in his Greater London authority division. He should not want to deny the existence of either of those places.

Bob Neill: Will the Under-Secretary accept that they are not in my constituency for the purposes of this House? I would not want to run into trouble with you, Mr. Benton, by referring to what I do in another place.

Angela Smith: It is best that we do not discuss what the hon. Gentleman does in another place.

Alistair Burt: Before the Under-Secretary leaves this issue, the Opposition note her attempts to get out of her problems with her Whip. We think that she has done extremely well.

Angela Smith: I am sure that I shall be rewarded in heaven.
 The hon. Gentleman’s substantive point was a serious one. I addressed two of his questions. His third was about how a new parish can co-exist or deal with neighbourhood committees or existing parish forums. That will be a matter for the principal council. If the principal council was of the view that the area was adequately served in terms of governance by existing local forums, that would be part of the decision-making process. That is not prescriptive from the Government; it is being devolutionary and the principal council could decide whether to take that into consideration.
The hon. Gentleman also asked where the demand from London for parish councils was. I do not know where the demand will be, but we are giving away the powers of decision. Decisions will rest with the London boroughs. It will be open to them to apply to have a parish council. I do not know what the demand will be, but the right has to be there for those in London to have the same rights as those in other parts of the country.

Alistair Burt: I apologise for interrupting the Under-Secretary again. She says that the Government do not know what the demand will be but that the opportunity ought to be there. I remind her about the strong feelings of this Committee in relation to the committee structure on governance, about which exactly the same argument was made. It is convenient for her to use that argument now, but it was not convenient for Ministers to use it a little earlier.

Angela Smith: There is a great difference between the governance arrangements once the council exists and whether or not to create a council. The decision here is whether it is a matter for the Secretary of State or the local council to decide. In both those cases here, it is for the principal council to decide.
I have addressed the concerns and issues raised by hon. Gentlemen. It comes down to being devolutionary and giving people in London, as well as anywhere else in the country, the same rights to decide whether to have a parish council. I urge the Opposition to withdraw the amendment.

Bob Neill: Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I am grateful for the Under-Secretary’s considered replies to our points. I will not pretend that we are convinced, but I note what she has said. It is clear that a great deal of this will be addressed in the guidance when it is issued in April, or at least I hope it will be addressed. I am grateful for the updated time frame, which may determine our future stance. I hope that some of her responses to the debate will be strengthened in that guidance, if it is going to be workable.
Finally, I understand why the Under-Secretary was confused and found the passage that I quoted incomprehensible. It was for this reason: they were not in fact Mr. Alan Pike’s words, but a direct quotation from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Office document, “Citizen Engagement and Public Services: Why Neighbourhoods Matter”, published in 2005, part of the Government’s 10-year vision for local government. I understand her confusion. Having got that in, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 132, in clause 77, page 52, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
 ‘(b) a county council in England for an area for which there are no district councils, or’.—[Angela E. Smith.]

Clause 77, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78

Application of Chapter: responsible local authorities

Amendment made: No. 133, in clause 78, page 52, line 20, leave out from ‘council’ to ‘county’ in line 21 and insert
‘in England, other than a council for a district in a county for which there is a’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Phil Woolas: The clause sets out which local authorities will be responsible authorities. I hope and intend that my introduction of the clause will give me an opportunity to help the Committee to place the remaining clauses in context.
 This chapter places duties on the authorities that are being defined to consult their partner authorities when preparing local area agreements and community strategies, to prepare for those local area agreements and co-operate with the partner authorities when determining the targets within the local area agreement. We believe that this makes a significant change in the statutory framework and statutory climate in which a local authority will work. It will enable better joined-up government for service delivery and public involvement.
The list includes upper-tier authorities—or those with upper-tier responsibilities—as well as the London boroughs, as has been mentioned, and the two peculiar but important local authorities—the City of London and the Isles of Scilly, which are designated as upper-tier authorities as well. Hon. Members from two-tier areas may wish to ask why district councils are not defined as responsible authorities. That would be a very reasonable question.
 Government policy, which I hope is clear, is that it is critical that districts and counties together agree their priorities for the locality that they cover to avoid obvious inefficiencies and overlapping or contradictory targets for the same area. In the local area agreement framework that is already in place, the districts are named among the partner authorities in clause 79. Every local authority area will have a local area agreement by 31 March. I hope that no one believes, inadvertently, that we are not paying attention to districts. They will be responsible for agreeing targets on the same basis as the counties and other local service providers. The clause, and other policy measures, are a crucial part of the new framework that the Bill creates.
 I was in some difficulty in our debate on Tuesday, as I had a copy of the embargoed information on the Audit Commission’s scoring. To prove how independent it is, the commission timed the release of that information for today rather than Tuesday morning, which would have been extremely helpful for my purposes.
 Members of the Committee may have heard the chairman of the Audit Commission, Mr. Michael O’Higgins, on the radio this morning. He congratulated local government on the increase in performance in every type and nature of local authority and across the political spectrum. When the interviewer asked why that was, he replied, “There were a number of themes that characterised the best councils: the quality of leadership and governance, the clarity of their focus on what they wish to do, how they work in partnership with other local organisations and the extent to which they understand what their users—the residents of the area—actually want.” Mr. O’Higgins said in two sentences what it took me an hour to explain the other day.

Tom Levitt: Does my hon. Friend think that it was irresponsible of The Times to point out, in an arbitrary manner, in a block heading that “No Liberal Democrat-controlled council is improving strongly”? Do not those arbitrary comments undermine the process in those councils?

Phil Woolas: I suspect, Mr. Benton, that you will not allow me to stray into the irresponsibility of The Times newspaper, much less the performance of the Liberal Democrat party. My hon. Friend has made a point that Hansard will record and that “Labour News” will repeat.

Andrew Stunell: When you are at the top of the tree, it is difficult to go higher.

Phil Woolas: There is therefore only one way for the Liberal Democrats to go if that is the case.
The framework of partnership and the duty to co-operate that the Bill puts into place is a very important part of the new duties and the direction of travel for local government. I hope hon. Members will support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 78, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79

Application of Chapter: partner authorities

Tom Brake: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in clause 79, page 53, leave out line 4 and insert—
‘(i) an NHS Trust or a Foundation Trust either commissioning or providing services to residents of some or all of the area;’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 88, in clause 79, page 53, line 4, at end insert—
‘( ) any individuals or groups of individuals or body, including any NHS organisation, providing general medical services’.
No. 65, in clause 79, page 53, line 10, at end insert—
‘(m) NHS Foundation Trusts and Health Trusts;
(n) the Mayor of London;
(o) Transport for London.’.
No. 117, in clause 79, page 53, line 10, at end insert—
‘(m) the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government;
(n) the Secretary of State for Education and Skills;
(o) the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry;
(p) the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;
(q) the Secretary of State for the Home Department;
(r) registered social landlords;
(s) public utilities;
(t) the Royal Mail’.
No. 136, in clause 79, page 53, line 10, at end insert—
‘(m) Regional Offender Managers,
(n) Probation Trusts and providers of probation services,
(o) Network Rail,
(p) the Housing Corporation and English Partnerships,
(q) the Forestry Commission,
(r) the National Forest Company,
(s) Regional Lottery Boards.’.

Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. Benton. We now come to the meat of part 5, which will allow local councils to deliver the strong and prosperous communities that the Government, the official Opposition and my party want to see. Local area agreements and the extent to which they can bind in and integrate the activities of partners will ensure delivery. We support fully the concept of local area agreements and allowing local authorities working with their partners to set priorities for an area.
I shall not, however, use the phrase “place shape”. It is something that I cannot stomach; it is far too new Labour for me. It is also a phrase that the public may not necessarily understand. Setting priorities is what the provision and local area agreements are about. That will be achieved by local improvement targets which, for the purposes of this afternoon, I shall abbreviate to LIT—not to be confused with local income tax, a very good alternative to the council tax system. However, although I might be tempted to engage the Government in a long debate about that alternative form of paying for local services, I understand that here is neither the time nor the place to do so.
The purpose of local improvement targets under the Bill is to improve economic, social or environmental well-being in a particular area. That will be achievable only when local authorities can undertake that role effectively, working with relevant partners. That is where the Bill is defective. It is appropriate to highlight some of the partners who will be missing from the table, unless the Government change the Bill.
That brings me to amendment No. 49 and NHS or foundation trusts. I accept the arguments put forward by the NHS Confederation that primary care trusts commission health services from NHS acute or foundation trusts, and that it will be the body that will hold those trusts to account for the services that they deliver. I disagree with the confederation’s view that, by including NHS or foundation trusts as a partner, it will create partnerships with no purpose. The confederation says that the key is to get the right people in the room.
There will be occasions when those from NHS and foundation trusts are the right people to get in the room. I am sorry to say that often the NHS partners are the most reluctant to get into the room. In the past few months, I have been conducting research among local authorities and know that one of the impacts of the financial pressures on NHS trusts means that they are scaling back their involvement and partnerships. They are not putting in the resources or the time to get people round the table, so it is a serious omission that NHS and foundation trusts are not included in the Bill.
 Clearly, the PCTs can use their contracts and will do so to ensure that the NHS and foundation trusts deliver in respect of health, but what about other matters in which the local authority might want to engage a local NHS trust—a large employer and generator of traffic—as a partner around the table? Let us consider traffic congestion. St. Helier hospital in my constituency is a large employer; it generates lots of vehicle movement. The local authority has an interesting scheme under way at present to reduce people’s use of private cars and make them aware of public transport alternatives. To what extent will a primary care trust be able to negotiate with an acute trust about engaging it in the process of reducing traffic congestion in and around the borough? The answer is not at all.
All members of the Committee can think of other cases—whether skills or employment—when we might want to involve partners directly and for them to include NHS and foundation trusts. I shall listen with great interest to the reasons why such a provision has been omitted from the list, but it will require a convincing explanation for us not to pursue the matter if not today through a Division, but at a later stage.
Amendment No. 88, tabled by the official Opposition, is in the same ballpark in what it seeks to achieve—more effective engagement with NHS partners than currently exists. Amendment No. 65 touches on the NHS, but it also includes the Mayor and Transport for London.
On amendment No. 117, I am sure that the Minister agrees with the LGA that the success of local area agreements, as well as depending on partners such as the NHS whose engagement we want, depends on central Government’s willingness to play a full role. Surely central Government’s role should not be simply to approve LAAs, but to engage heavily in the process and to show that they are a willing partner. For instance, if a local improvement target will address social disorder and antisocial behaviour in an area, there are clearly circumstances in which the local authority will want the Home Office to be engaged in the process. A local authority seeking with its partners to introduce targets on climate change, particularly a local authority in a coastal area, will want to engage the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the process. For that reason, we have suggested in amendment No. 117 additional partners whom we believe should be around the table to discuss local area agreements and targets with local authorities and other partners.

Patrick Hall: The list goes on and on, but I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps the Government, why educational establishments—for example, local schools and sixth-form colleges—have not been included, because they have an important impact on the nature of any area.

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman has made a valid point. If I concede one flaw in our amendments, and only one, it is that the moment a list is deployed, it is easy to identify other things that should have been included. He has a strong case, and he may want to consider tabling his own amendment to ensure that educational bodies are represented as partners, just as we are seeking to ensure that DEFRA, the Home Office and so on are included. The Government, Departments and regional offices need to be engaged in the process, which is what we want amendment No. 117 to achieve.
Amendment No. 136 could perhaps have been incorporated with No. 117. I am afraid that it is a further list of additional organisations that could be sought as partners around a table. I am not suggesting that all the partners should be present at each and every single meeting to define the local area agreement—this Room would not be sufficient for all of them, and I am sure that local council offices would struggle to provide the necessary tea and biscuits—but there will be cases in which they should be engaged.
I shall give a couple more examples in relation to amendment No. 136. I suspect that every hon. Member here who has part of the rail network running through their constituency has at some point torn out their hair about Network Rail’s lack of involvement in problems there. I shall draw attention to one particular issue. Let us take the London borough of Sutton as an example, and let us say that it launched an initiative to tidy up Wallington town centre. At the very heart of Wallington is Wallington station. Every single person who arrives in Wallington by train and who walks into the town centre, and every person who leaves the town centre to catch a train, must walk under a bridge maintained by Network Rail. What they will see if they follow that particular route—many of my constituents, particularly those with children, now avoid it—is a large number of dead pigeons caught in a wire mesh. Many of my constituents will not walk that route with their children, because their children do not want to see dead pigeons, or pigeons on their way out, caught by the wire mesh.
Has it been possible to get Network Rail engaged in sorting out that problem over the past five years? Certainly not. The problem has nothing to do with Network Rail. It is Network Rail’s bridge, but it is not its problem. I do not know whose problem it is, but it is certainly not Network Rail’s. Clearly, we need the organisation to be engaged in the process. We will not improve our town centre—I think that this will be true of many town centres—until that particular problem is sorted out. I want to see Network Rail as a partner in this process.
Probation trusts, which the Government will introduce in the Offender Management Bill, appear to be another serious omission from the list. As the hon. Member for Bedford has said, there is a problem with identifying a whole series of organisations that one would seek to involve as partners, but there are some significant omissions that the Government should consider incorporating in the Bill. That opportunity does not come up very frequently. Therefore, rather than waiting for the Government to realise that the omission was more serious than they had anticipated, I hope that members of the Committee will agree that now is the right time to address the issue. That would give us a situation in which local authorities can deliver real local area agreements with real power and work effectively with all of the partners that need to be engaged in the process to make a real change to a local community—I am not going to use the phrase “place shape”—and to improve an area in a way in which local residents want. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. I hope that she can give a convincing explanation why so many significant partners have been omitted from the list.

Robert Syms: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. In my experience, local government and other organisations are always full of lawyers. Looking at the list, which is growing, one can see a lot more work for lawyers coming out of the Bill. Amendment No. 88 is in line with what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has said about the national health service. It might be appropriate for primary care trusts to be listed, but there are some very big hospitals in boroughs and council areas that also have a big impact. Even if one is not talking specifically about health issues, there is a load of related issues that might exercise a local council—for example, thousands of people working in a hospital might need housing and car-parking arrangements. Also, local buses are routed and timed to deal with patients and those who work in hospitals. Therefore, a whole range of issues could impact very heavily on the community. We feel that there should be a mechanism allowing authorities and boroughs to have more of an agreement and dialogue with those particular organisations.
As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington has discussed Network Rail—I have some sympathy for anyone who has Network Rail going through their constituency—I wondered about airports and ports. I have a port in my constituency in Poole. Heathrow has a pretty big impact on west London. The issues there include the possibility of extra terminals, where the traffic goes, who is travelling there and what impact that has. Some organisations on the list have less of an impact than very large airports, even small airports in rural areas can have a disproportionate effect on a particular community.
We want the Minister to justify why the organisations listed under paragraphs (a) to (i) are necessary, why other organisations are excluded and whether or not the Government are happy that the drafting of the Bill is right. It seems to me that we have a very extensive list, but there are some very big gaps that will make governance at a local level rather more difficult because the list excludes some very big players in local communities.

Philip Dunne: First, I support the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole on clause 49. To give the Under-Secretary an illustration why “Primary Care Trust” might be an insufficiently broad descriptor of what she is trying to get at, in my constituency we are debating a situation where the primary provider of community health care is likely to become a not-for-profit trust, which will be outside the primary care trust’s direct management and control. If we are looking to involve the providers of medical services, the Liberal Democrat amendment helps to capture the thrust of what the Government are getting at, as does our amendment.
Secondly, picking up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington on transport authorities, he may have a problem with dead pigeons in an urban area, but in a rural area we have problems with other forms of wildlife that affect the transport thoroughfares, particularly dead badgers, which may be receptacles for bovine tuberculosis.

Tom Brake: In urban areas, there is a problem with pheasants jamming the brakes on trains, so even in such areas wildlife is a big issue.

Philip Dunne: I fully accept that wildlife affects urban areas as much as rural areas. Of course, the fox springs to mind as being as much of a pest in urban areas—often more so—than in rural areas, where it now lives free of its predator.
The Highways Agency should be included in the list, but it has not been mentioned yet in any amendment. If the Bill is trying to get to transport providers, will the Under-Secretary consider including the Highways Agency as well as Network Rail?

Andrew Gwynne: I want to go into a bit more depth on a number of matters that have been touched on. I have much sympathy with adding to the list of partner authorities, because there is a danger that if we do not do so we will lose accountability and lose the involvement of some of the partners, not necessarily including the national organisations and quangos as part of the local area agreement. However, there is a danger of producing an  almost endless list. If it is not going to be done in that way, we need a mechanism in place to bring other organisations and bodies formally into the process.
Over the past few decades, a plethora of organisations, although not necessarily the national organisations and quangos, have been involved at the local level. Thinking locally, many local authorities have moved towards care home trusts, sports trusts and housing action trusts—building companies that have taken over the responsibilities of the former direct service organisations—and so on. The list is almost as endless as the one in respect of the other suggestions. There is a danger that if we do not involve more formally some of those organisations, we will end up with a loophole further down the line.
The bodies that I have referred to are often solely funded by local authorities and often provide a service solely on behalf of the local authority—quite frequently in buildings still owned by it—yet legally and constitutionally they are completely separate from local authorities and are not, for example, covered by a range of regulations that would apply to them were the relevant services still offered in-house. We will possibly debate that in more detail when discussing chapter 2 and the enhanced scrutiny and the access to information from partner authorities. Chapter 2 and clause 49 are linked, because the former states that the partner authorities that are listed have to provide the information. If those organisations are not listed, a mechanism is needed to include them somewhere else. I have a number of concerns, and I will go into more detail when we debate the clause on access to information.
If there is a breakdown in the relationship between the local authority and the arm’s length organisation—or, in many cases, the completely independent organisation—the local area agreement is not well served and there needs to be a formal mechanism that brings the parties together to talk. I am thinking in particular of housing.
It is fortunate that there is a good housing trust in my constituency—New Charter Housing Trust in Tameside—as well as an arm’s length management organisation in Stockport, both of which work well. However, now that the council has a statutory responsibility for housing without necessarily having the housing stock, there is the danger of a serious breakdown.

Tom Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is already evidence of a breakdown in the relationship between local authorities and the NHS, because the NHS is under financial pressure? We need to ensure through this Bill that such financial pressures do not lead to the breakdown in relationships that he seeks to prevent.

Andrew Gwynne: I absolutely agree. It is the case not just for the NHS and for housing trusts but potentially for all organisations that are arm’s length, quasi-independent of the local authorities or totally independent of local authorities. That is why we need to tighten up this part of the Bill. I hope that the Minister can assure us that there will be local mechanisms to bring in those other organisations.
I am sure that those relationships will remain strong in Tameside, an authority with four stars, in the top category and showing strong improvement. It is the only such authority in Greater Manchester or in the north-west—I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan were here to listen to this. However, we need to legislate for areas that do not show the same responsibility in keeping partners together.

Alison Seabeck: I will be brief, and will focus on whether housing associations should be involved in local area agreements. We have heard all the arguments. There is a strong case for social landlords to be included. I cannot vote for amendment No. 136, because I am not sure what is meant by the duty on the Housing Corporation, and whether that is the right wording. Housing associations play an increasingly important role in our communities. They are not just providers of what was, in some cases, council-managed property, but they are also partners in the delivery of a range of services, most of which are in the public sector and are mentioned in the Bill. They are essential partners in tackling antisocial behaviour and their lettings policies can be crucial to community cohesion. It therefore does not make sense not to allow them to be party to, or to scrutinise, LAAs—not least because the Government’s clearly stated position on the housing role of local authorities is that they should operate strategically. This is a missed opportunity and I find the two positions a little illogical.
We have heard a lot of good examples, and I shall not go into them further. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, for instance, spoke strongly here and on Second Reading about sports trusts. I hope that the Minister will consider the suggested additions, particularly on the role of registered social landlords and NHS foundation hospital trusts.

Patrick Hall: I just want to reinforce the point that I made in an intervention about the list going on and on. If we are to think carefully about the organisations that, at their best, make a positive contribution to community life, then schools, colleges and universities must be included. The best of them do not live in ivory towers operating in isolation; they are engaged in the life of their area. The university of Bedfordshire has taken very positive initiatives in relation to the economic development of the county as well as of the town. Wherever there are such organisations and institutions, there is a need to welcome the work that they already do and to engage them in the formal process.
Also, I cannot see in the Bill a reference to what we debated this morning, which was town and parish councils. Indeed, I mentioned urban community councils as well. Not to include those organisations formally would send a negative signal. These are organisations in which people have usually been elected, and even if people have been co-opted or appointed, at least they are showing that they wish to be engaged in improving community life. To exclude them would be a mistake, so I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the matter.

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to hon. Members who have, on the whole, spoken about their desire to extend the number of bodies—public and, in some cases, non-public bodies—rather than question the premise of the policy, which is to include a duty to co-operate across the partners as defined. That shows me that there is a consensus for this approach; it is nice to be discussing just the boundaries of the approach. We can take some comfort from that.
As I said before, the clause sets out the list of public bodies and persons that will be partner authorities for the purposes of this chapter. The list will ensure that all the relevant public bodies involved in delivering services in a particular area will be committed to co-operating with the previously mentioned responsible authorities, as defined in clause 78, and also with each other in determining targets when local area agreements and the community strategies—the formal documents adopted by local authorities—are being prepared.
The list of partner authorities includes bodies that deliver services at the local level. To give some obvious examples, they include the police authority, the primary care trust and the jobcentre. There are also overarching bodies—commonly national bodies with regional structures—such as Sport England, which is very important in many community strategies, and the Health and Safety Executive. Those organisations have a regional or local presence and are able to engage in the setting of targets and the shaping of wider priorities.
Of course, this list of bodies is not immune to change. Other bodies whose functions are relevant to the clauses in this chapter may come into existence, so it may become necessary to change the list from time to time. To that end, there is included—as Members will have noted—an order-making power that provides that the Secretary of State may amend the list of bodies and persons after consulting the appropriate representatives of local government. That is in clause 79(6). The Secretary of State would have to consult Parliament with regard to making any such additions to the list.

Philip Dunne: Is not one of the great problems with the clause that although the Minister is constantly reminding the Committee of the Government’s desire to devolve decisions down to local authorities, on an issue about which each local authority is best placed to determine who it should consult in order to engage in a local area agreement, the Secretary of State will determine which are the right parties, and a laborious procedure will have to be gone through by each participating principal council to secure such consent from the Secretary of State? Surely, that is the wrong way round.

Phil Woolas: The Government’s policy and intention is to meet the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. The power that the Secretary of State will have to add bodies to the list will be a power to enable devolution, so that local government can work with those partner bodies in the local area in the consultation over the local area agreement, the setting of targets and the delivery of services. What I am simply saying is that there may be bodies that do not exist at the moment, or that may carry out functions that are not being undertaken by existing bodies, whose inclusion would make the list more relevant. Therefore, the idea of giving to the Secretary of State the power to extend the list meets the objective that the hon. Gentleman has described.

David Burrowes: I understand the Minister when he discusses the intentions that we all agree on. Would it not be better, however, to have a wider definition of partner authorities, rather than having to find office holders and then laboriously extend the provisions? For example, it might be appropriate in principle for members of the voluntary sector, which has not been mentioned, to be included in partnership authorities. Will the Minister confirm that?

Phil Woolas: I shall respond to the specifics of the speech made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington and then come to the point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. In general, one is talking about public bodies, not about private companies or voluntary sector bodies, although they have important roles, particularly in contracting and commissioning, where they are very relevant. Later in the Bill, of course, we will come to the workings of local strategic partnerships.
Given the efforts that the Government and the Local Government Association made to build a consensus on this approach, I am very encouraged by the fact that we are debating the number of bodies that should be included. I have a wry smile at the irony of hon. Members calling for private companies and voluntary bodies to be included in the plans. One cannot be too dictatorial about such matters. However, as Lady Thatcher once said, “It’s a funny old world.”
I shall respond—sometimes positively—to points made by hon. Members. Adding schools to the list of partner authorities would compel the responsible local authority to co-operate with all the schools in its area when preparing or revising the draft local area agreement or community strategy. I suppose that co-operation works both ways, but I remind hon. Members that, as they will know from their constituencies, some local authorities have well over 300 schools operating in their area, many of which are small primary schools with limited capacity to contribute meaningfully to strategic objectives. To place all of them under a duty to co-operate would add significantly to the bureaucracy in the schools and local authorities.
 Tom Brake rose—

Phil Woolas: I shall not give way yet because I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will like my next point.
We believe also that the proposal is unnecessary because schools are already covered by the key partnerships in the local authority target-setting process. The 18 statutory education performance targets, which will form part of every local area agreement, are built on the statutory targets set each year by local authority maintained schools. Alongside the 35 or so suite of packages, on which the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire has tabled an amendment, there is the 18 or so suite of targets for schools’ educational functions. We believe that that is the best way in which to address the point that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington made.

Tom Brake: That point was not made by me, but by the hon. Member for Bedford—a Member from the Minister’s own side. However, is the legislation not defective if the inclusion of schools in the list would require a local authority to engage each organisation in discussions, negotiations and consultations? Should that not be approached on a case-by-case basis, rather than by saying, “If you have 300 schools, you must consult them all”?

Phil Woolas: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, who, of course, made the point about schools. That would be the case if, as in most authorities, including mine, there was generally a co-operative climate or culture. However, as ever when legislating, one must try to predict circumstances in which the norm would not be the case. That is my concern.
Of course, schools can, and do, engage in local partnership arrangements through the children’s trusts, which I believe is a proportionate and sensible approach. The Children Act 2004 set out that procedure. We want all local authorities to look at the needs and wishes of parents of pupils in their area and include in their planning the full role of schools in delivering these objectives.
To that end, the children and young people’s plan provides a single overarching strategic plan for all services that affect children and young people in the locality. All local authorities must have such a plan except four-star authorities such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish. They are excluded from this obligation as part of the incentivisation to good performance, which is a policy that has been generally welcomed. Section 38 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which hon. Members will remember voting for, places a duty on school governing bodies to have regard to that plan. I am not trying to create a superstructure with a detailed plan that would be too heavy and too intrusive, but to provide a strategic framework through statutory duty within the local area agreement and local strategic partnership plan.
Furthermore, the 2006 Act also places a duty on schools to promote the well-being of their pupils and to promote community cohesion, a point that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made earlier. Schools are included within that point and, goodness knows, that is important. There is no implication that schools can opt out of any “place-making activities”. That is what it says in my brief although I rather agree with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington about that. If he can suggest an alternative phrase, I should be grateful for a postcard. It was Sir Michael Lyons who coined the phrase and, as we know, one does not have to accept all the recommendations from independent commissions.
It may be helpful if I briefly mention universities and further education colleges because universities could well be very useful partners in local area groups, particularly in areas where student accommodation is changing the nature of the community. Hon. Members will know the types of communities that I am talking about. Further education colleges are already represented by the inclusion of the Learning and Skills Council as a statutory partner. The university bodies present a different case because they are independent bodies established by charter. A better solution is to encourage responsible local authorities to consult such other bodies as they consider appropriate when drafting local area agreements and community strategies. We will seek to indicate through the statutory guidance that this could and may involve universities where appropriate. I can think of a number of examples where it would be appropriate.

Tom Brake: Clearly I welcome the fact that he will ensure that such bodies are consulted. But consulting a university is one thing, ensuring that it responds in terms of the transport implications and the impact on housing in an area is a completely different matter.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman has a point about housing in particular. I visited Loughborough recently where there was a conference of local authorities hosted by Nottingham on the whole issue of housing and students. The obligation on the local authority to consult the university is important, but there are two points to bear in mind. First, this is not the be-all and end-all of existing requirements to involve and consult. This is putting a statutory duty on specified bodies, and universities present a particular challenge. I agree with him about housing. There may be local transport implications if there are large numbers of students, even though, oddly enough, some of them are now well off enough to have cars. That is why the Bill provides for universities to have the facility to enter into local area agreements, rather than compelling them to do so.
 The argument that has been put to me by vice-chancellors is that universities in some cases have national and international strategic objectives. It might be appropriate to cover certain of their functional areas—the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned transport and housing. However, our wider objective is to deal with those partners that help to deliver local authority services. It is a point that I have thought long and hard about, however.
 The issue of how to involve the voluntary and community sectors, and indeed the commercial sector, is crucial. Those sectors are not designated partner authorities, because they are independent, and one cannot responsibly ask Parliament to bring independent private bodies under the control of statutory bodies. That would be Stalinist, and it would not work. Nevertheless, it is important that organisations in each of the voluntary, community and business sectors are involved in setting priorities and in the day-to-day working of delivery.
It would be impossible to name each and every relevant body, and it would be inappropriate to impose the new duties on them. However, the Bill provides for responsible authorities—“responsible” in the legal sense of clause 78—to consult
“such other persons as appear to it to be appropriate”
 when preparing the local area agreements and the community strategies. The Government’s decision to enter into statutory guidance on the matter reflects the fact that although such bodies are not statutory or public-sector bodies, they are important. That has been part of the dialogue between the Government and the voluntary sector, through the office of the third sector in the Cabinet Office and through the compact arrangement. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak is chair of the Community Development Foundation and I believe that, among his other activities, he has been extensively involved with this issue.
The arguments apply equally to the business sector. It is crucial that business and commerce are involved not just in the request for delivery of the desirable goals, but in the design of those goals, not least because of the other benefits that can derive from business involvement in shaping strategies and services. As we ask local authorities to take on more responsibility for economic regeneration and economic leadership, we are genuinely trying to create a partnership for each area that includes those organisations.
 The statutory guidance that will follow enactment of the Bill will stress that organisations in each of the voluntary, community and business sectors must be involved in the process. How that happens it a matter for the local area. That it should be done will be a matter of statutory guidance, however. It will also be possible for bodies in those sectors to agree to help to deliver particular targets on a voluntary basis. I refer the Committee to subsections (1)(c) and (3) of clause 80.
The amendments in the group have been moved with good intent, within the framework of the Government’s policy. I am advised that amendment No. 49 would have the consequence—unintended, I assume—of removing primary care trusts. I make that observation for the benefit of the Committee, although it is not my argument against the amendment.
On the positive side, amendments Nos. 49 and 65 seek to add NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts to the list of partner authorities. The involvement of those bodies in local area agreement processes is clearly desirable, but it is made difficult by the fact that some trusts provide regional and national services. That is the other side of the coin to the point made by the hon. Member for Poole.
Let me explain my thinking. Great Ormond Street, for example, delivers specialist services on a national basis. There could and would be confusion as to which local authorities and local authority services it should co-operate with. Great Ormond Street patients come from all over the country, and I imagine from all over the world, so such an amendment could mean that it would have to be consulted on and co-operate in the preparation of local area agreement targets. That is a technical point and not my main point, but it is important not to impose unduly on such trusts.
The Government, however, recognise the importance of NHS trusts and foundation trusts and it is our intention, following representations and comments, to name them in the Bill in such a way as to avoid the Great Ormond Street problem but to include them as partner authorities. I hope that the Committee will welcome that commitment. As late as yesterday, the Association of Directors of Social Services was making a similar point, given the importance of NHS trusts and foundation trusts. [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford wish to intervene?

Patrick Hall: I was building up to intervene, but not on the NHS. Now that I am on my feet, I shall say that I was hoping that my hon. Friend would not forget my point about parish and town councils and why they should not be partner authorities. He has not come to that yet.
 Tom Brake rose—

Phil Woolas: I give way to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington.

Tom Brake: On the Great Ormond Street problem, we would clearly not want the local area agreement to require Great Ormond Street to address issues that are about its national or international profile. Can the Minister clarify whether the amendment that he intends to table, or the guidance or whatever, will ensure that the implications of such a hospital on traffic, employment and so on are covered?

Phil Woolas: That is what we are trying to do—it is the central point. We do not want to involve specialist care units for babies who are seriously ill, but we do want to involve the hospital in matters relevant to the local area.
 Amendment No. 65 would add the Mayor of London and Transport for London to the list of partner authorities. The Greater London authority is of course already represented in the list by three of its functional bodies—the Metropolitan Police, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and the London Development Agency. I intend to add a fourth, Transport for London, by amendment following consultations and representations. It is more appropriate to name the GLA’s delivery bodies than the Mayor himself, because they can agree and deliver local area agreement targets, a function that the Mayor does not have. I hope that hon. Members will accept that the Mayor and his office are subject to an accountability structure through the London assembly, as we have heard.
Similarly, there is an argument against parishes and community councils being added to the list. It would make the list of partners to be brought around a table very long. To give one example, North Yorkshire has 588 parish councils and the constituency of Bassetlaw has 88. That is a pragmatic point, although we will be signalling in the guidance the importance of involving parishes. Parish plans, which are important in the delivery of services to local areas, will of course be linked to local authorities’ community strategies. There are therefore two arguments on parishes: one pragmatic and the other asking to whom they are accountable. Ultimately one cannot supplant their accountability to the electorate with targets, even if they were agreed on.
Amendment No. 88 would add to the list of partner authorities any individuals or bodies that provide general medical services. It is not entirely certain and would be difficult to define in law what effects the wording would have, but it appears that it would include general practitioners. It might also include those providing medical services in acute trusts. To include such a broad group would make the process unworkable. It makes more sense to focus on primary care trusts, which commission both primary services and the hospital-based NHS.

Tom Brake: The Minister is being very helpful in outlining how he will address the issue of NHS trusts. It is welcome. Will he clarify, now or later, whether independent treatment centres would be included under the amendment?

Phil Woolas: The crucial point is that the process of commissioning services would include the obligation to work toward the targets. To that extent, the amendment would apply in such an instance. The argument is similar to the one about registered social landlords, to which I am about to come.
 Amendment No. 117 would add to the list of partner authorities the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government, Education and Skills, Trade and Industry, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Home Department. I am compelled to point out that in law there is only one Secretary of State, so the Bill’s definition of the Secretary of State includes them all. It is an important point in the policy, and one that local government fears. It is suspicious or anxious that somehow the agreement is with my Department and not with central Government as a whole. Local area agreements are made with central Government, and indeed signed by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and numerous Secretaries of State. I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Amendment No. 117 would add registered social landlords to the list. Although I recognise their important role, I do not agree that they should be added to the list of partner authorities. First, they are not public bodies. They can be charities, limited companies or industrial and provident societies. I have sought to avoid naming such organisations in the clauses for the reasons that I gave to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate. Secondly, it would not be appropriate to place registered social landlords under the duties, as they are not tied to any particular geographical area. For example, one RSL is based in Sheffield yet owns properties all over the country. In such circumstances, it would be unclear to a local authority which RSL to consult. I recognise that that is a technical and pragmatic point, but I shall come to a larger policy point.
The Government-commissioned Cave review, due to report in April, is examining the whole regulatory framework for social housing, including registered social landlords. Having discussed the matter across Government, we have decided that it would be premature to name RSLs in the Bill, as their remit and status may be subject to change. As we have said, the Bill provides for the possibility of adding to the list of partner authorities, and we might be able to do so later. I emphasise that there is no intention one way or the other at this stage; I mention it merely as a possibility. Also, the Government have recently merged the Housing Corporation with English Partnerships, which is covered in the list of bodies.
Hon. Members asked about the Highways Agency. I point the Committee to clause 79(3)(g)(ii) and (iii), which deal with the Secretary of State’s exercise of the functions. The Highways Agency does not operate legally as a separate entity. Its duties are performed on behalf of the Secretary of State, so it is included in the list of partner authorities. I think that constituency Members of Parliament, as well as local authorities, will welcome that.

Tom Brake: On the subject of transport—the Minister might have been about to come to it—Network Rail has been mentioned. I know that there is a long, heated argument about the precise status of Network Rail and whether it is part of the state, but I hope that the Minister will set out his position on the company.

Phil Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me that opportunity. There is a good reason why we cannot accept the inclusion of Network Rail as a partner authority: it is a private company that is limited by guarantee and therefore has its own regulatory and target-setting framework. He might argue that it should not be a private limited company, but that issue is not within the scope of the Bill and I shall not be drawn on it. I am sure that you would not allow us to discuss that anyway, Mr. Benton.
Network Rail is subject to a licence that is enforced by the Office of Rail Regulation, which sets the targets for Network Rail. The ORR is an independent regulator and Network Rail would therefore be unable to fulfil a duty of co-operation to agree to targets in a local area agreement. Transport functions that are carried out by responsible authorities, whether passenger transport authorities or the transport authority functions within local councils, would be subject to that duty of co-operation. The Bill is intended to define the boundaries between national and local in the way that the Sustainable Communities Bill is intended to, but I believe that this Bill does so more successfully. I hope that that answers that question about this important clause.

Tom Brake: It is rare at the Committee stage for Opposition Members to feel that the Government have made a significant concession. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who speaks for the official Opposition on housing matters, bemoaned the fact that, as a Member of Parliament, he could not show his mother any achievements of changing the Government’s legislation. I think that people will feel envious that today, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have secured from the Minister an important undertaking in relation to NHS trusts, which is extremely welcome.
I am not sure that the Minister has convinced Members on either side of the Committee about his reasons for opting for a list approach to identify partners, rather than a much more flexible approach. In years to come, we will visit the Secretary of State many times to add names to or remove names from that list.

Phil Woolas: That is an important point. The reason for such an approach is to empower local authorities. I want the list on the face of the Bill so that it is known that the public authorities concerned have a duty to co-operate in the meeting of targets in their areas. I would rather have a debate between central and local government about who should be on or off that list than about whether there should be a list. There is an alternative option, as the hon. Gentleman explained, but I think that my approach is more likely to help local authorities succeed in fulfilling the aim.

Tom Brake: I hope that the Minister is right; no doubt, time will tell. He has made some significant pronouncements today about areas of the Bill that he intends to amend in ways that I think would improve it.
Opposition Members, joined by three Back Benchers on the Minister’s side, have expressed some strong reservations. We might defeat the Government and blot forever the careers of those three Government Back Benchers if we were to press the amendments to a Division, but I think that it is appropriate to return to the issue at a later date. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Stunell: I wish to say a few words about the clause and the direction of travel. It is entitled “Application of Chapter: partner authorities”, and I wish to draw to the Committee’s attention what is self-evident: that by far and away the most significant and biggest partner of local government is national Government. The Secretary of State—I am sorry, I mean the Minister; I got a little ahead of his promotion schedule there—referred to Secretaries of State and said that, of course, there is only one Secretary of State. I guess the collective noun for Secretaries of State is Government. That emphasises the point that it is a relationship—hopefully a partnership—between central Government and local government that is at the core of delivering services and ensuring that democracy works well. It is certainly the Liberal Democrats’ view that that partnership should be seen to be and should actually be a partnership of equals, where there are clear boundaries on the responsibilities and the rights to interfere, to directand to innovate, and where both local government and national Government are seen as having a separate and legitimate constitutional existence.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the European charter of local self-government, which sets out some of the constraints that a national Government should have in mind when they are in, or developing, a partnership with local government. Is the Minister satisfied that, in the light of the clause in particular and the Bill as a whole, he will be in a position to say that the Government are compliant with that charter? If so, will he move towards seeing the UK ratify that charter?
My colleagues and I attempted to table a new clause that would have made more explicit the need for that partnership arrangement to be formal, and to establish a concordat between national and local government. We were unable to do that because it was outside the scope of the Bill. However, I would like to hear from the Minister whether, on behalf of the Secretary of State, he would undertake to initiate a dialogue with local government, so that we could lead a move towards a situation where that ratification could take place and we could see in place a concordat that clearly sets out the relevant powers and responsibilities of the two tiers of government, local and national.
Underlying many of the debates that we have had so far—and many of the debates that lie ahead on the Bill—are the problems, the difficulties, the suspicion and the mistrust between the two layers. The Government do not trust local government and, let us be blunt, local government often does not trust national Government. Perhaps both have some right on their side, but surely we should be working to draw together a stronger partnership of equals. I hope that the Minister can respond positively to developing that over the coming years.

Phil Woolas: Perhaps I should respond in some more detail outside the Committee to the important point that the hon. Gentleman makes. Perhaps he could table a written question in order to give the Government the opportunity to answer. It is relevant to the Committee that we have that dialogue, as he will know, with the Local Government Association through various structures, and the UK representatives of local government in that dialogue tend, in my experience, genuinely to act in the country’s interest rather than in a partisan way. That is to be welcomed.
I hope that, notwithstanding the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made, that I have convinced the Committee that the intention behind the clause is precisely to achieve the sort of co-operation that we need. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman that central Government do not trust local government, and local government does not trust central Government. That is the impression that is given sometimes, but on the whole local government is a partner in the governance of the country and we need it to be so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81

Duty to prepare and submit draft of a local area agreement

Alistair Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in clause 81, page 54, line 40, after ‘authority’, insert—
‘( ) other non-statutory partners to the Local Area Agreement’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 127, in clause 86, page 57, line 9, after ‘authority’, insert—
‘( ) other non-statutory partners to the Local Area Agreement’.

Alistair Burt: The amendment gives us an opportunity to talk about the importance of the voluntary sector and the involvement of non-statutory partners. The voluntary and independent sectors are important in the future of local government.
I have the honour to sit with the hon. Member for High Peak on the Commission on the Future of Volunteering, which was set up last year by Volunteering England, under the leadership of Baroness Neuberger. We are conducting a review of what is currently happening in volunteering around the country and hope to make recommendations in future about how volunteering can be spread even further throughout society and be made most effective.
On talking to groups that involve volunteers, one cannot doubt that their engagement as service providers throughout the community and the increasing reliance of local authorities and other statutory authorities on volunteers is a key issue for them. Most volunteers, who come into organisations to be useful and to provide something for society, are only too pleased to work hand in hand with the statutory authorities that need them. Equally, however, they do not want that enthusiasm to be drowned out in the process of making contracts and find their determination to work being channelled in such a way that they are not necessarily volunteering on their own behalf, but feel more that they are being asked to follow somebody else’s agenda, which detracts from the spirit that brought them into volunteering. I say that simply to illustrate how important their commitment and involvement is. The amendments are designed to give them statutory recognition in a way that the clause does not quite do.
The clause is permissive. It allows, in subsection (2)(a)(ii), for the responsible local authority to consult
“such other persons as appear to it to be appropriate”,
as opposed to “each partner authority”, with which it must consult. That provision would cover bringing on board those in voluntary organisations and others. However, the amendment states that where such people have been engaged as partners, they should have a status beyond that of any others and should not be brought along as an afterthought.

Phil Woolas: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about individual voluntary sector organisations, umbrella associations of voluntary organisations, or both?

Alistair Burt: I am talking specifically about those who have been engaged as partners within an area agreement, so that will vary according to what the agreement is. I am trying to ensure that, when consultation is taking place, the involvement of those people will not simply depend on whether the authority considers them to be “appropriate”, but will be mandatory because of what they are doing and how they are working with a local authority.
Let me expand on the role of the voluntary sector, because it is important to put in on the record. I thank the National Council for Voluntary Organisations for the briefing that it provided for Committee members, to which I am referring. In its main briefing, when referring to the whole background to the Bill, it states: 
“The future of local government is a key issue for the voluntary and community sector. The sector is particularly keen to see modernisation and change in partnership working, scrutiny and accountability, best value, community governance and capacity building support for the VCS...Voluntary and community organisations interact with local authorities and other statutory organisations in numerous ways and at numerous levels, playing three very important roles...they provide information and give advice to individuals or communities; they enable people’s voices to be heard, by supporting and encouraging people and communities or by acting as advocates (very often for marginalised groups who may not have any other way of being heard) and they provide activities and services.”
I am particularly concerned with that third element.
It would be appropriate for the Government to recognise the involvement of the sector in providing services by following it through under the amendment. Voluntary and community organisations need to be involved in the local area agreement process from the outset and enabled to engage fully with the agreement process, setting targets and discussing funding. It is important to recognise that, for many voluntary and community organisations, risks are inherent in the LAA approach. Whereas good local authorities will make use of the freedoms and flexibilities to determine their own priorities in partnership with a broad range of local stakeholders, others will take the opportunity to pull back all control to themselves. If local partnerships are to be benefit from the sector’s expertise and insight into such issues, there must be support, including some financial support, to facilitate the sector’s engagement.

Alison Seabeck: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s points—indeed, I made some of them myself on Second Reading. However, the voluntary sector is a complex beast. Some voluntary sector organisations are engaged in partnerships and deliver services, while others work within the community but none the less regard themselves as partners. I am not sure how the amendment can differentiate clearly or whether the requirement should be in the Bill or be covered by guidance.

Alistair Burt: I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point. When voluntary organisations are involved formally in partnerships, they ought to be statutory consultees. When they are not formally involved and are fulfilling the role that she mentioned, they are properly covered by subsection (2)(a)(ii).

Alison Seabeck: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from his experience that voluntary organisations move in and out of partnerships, according to what is available and other factors. Is there enough flexibility to accommodate that movement?

Alistair Burt: Again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making a fair point. The problems of voluntary organisations and their contractual arrangements, and how difficult it sometimes is, particularly as they come to an end of a contract, to know whether it will continue and whether they will survive, are a wholly different debate.
I maintain that the position is clear. When voluntary organisations are involved in a partnership, they should have the opportunity statutorily to be joined with other partner authorities and be a key part of the consultation process. I appreciate that they are included elsewhere in the Bill, but I want to put on record their opportunity to take that chance and be consulted in a particular way.
I have explained the purpose of the amendment, but I think that all of us would pay tribute to the work done by voluntary organisations and their tremendous provision of services. If those reading and following the proceedings of the Committee wish to give evidence to the Commission on the Future of Volunteering, I ask them please to take the opportunity to go to the appropriate website. The commission offers them a tremendous chance to get on the record their views on where they think volunteering is going and to talk about some of the difficulties they encounter. The intention behind the commission is that it should benefit everyone by creating better and stronger partnerships in the future. I should be grateful if the Minister would recognise the strength of the amendments and give them a fair wind.

Tom Levitt: It is indeed a pleasure to follow my fellow member of the Commission on the Future of Volunteering. I am happy to endorse in principle pretty well everything that he said, especially asking people not only to visit the website, but the consultation events, some of which both he and I will be chairing throughout the country during the next few months.
As well as being chairman of the Community Development Foundation, which is a Government appointment, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on the community and voluntary sector, the administration of which is provided by the NCVO, which provided us with the briefing on the amendment. The NCVO also provided a rather excellent gala dinner last night, which is perhaps why I was a little subdued this morning.
The NCVO strongly supports the thrust of the amendment, and quite rightly so. I am very sympathetic myself. I hope that the Ministers will go away and think about the implications of the amendment and some of the strong points that the hon. Gentleman has just made, and then come back with an amendment that encapsulates rather better the arrangements for those voluntary sector organisations that are partners in the delivery of services and in local agreements of one form or another. I believe that local strategic partnerships and local area agreements are going to become very much more important, with an ever greater role for the voluntary sector as formal members of those organisations.
Healthy communities, which is what the Bill is all about, are those where the third sector is active and involved. It is involved in three ways: delivering services; representing people through processes of consultation; and, on a 24-hour-a-day basis, serving the communities in other ways. Communities themselves often give birth to those organisations, particularly in what we now call the community sector, as opposed to the more vertical silos of the old idea of the voluntary sector. In my constituency there are some smashing examples of voluntary sector organisations engaging with the formal partners in service delivery in many different ways.
The community in Gamesley, which is among the 10 per cent. most deprived wards in the country, has a wonderful infrastructure, with public and voluntary sector partners operating in many different ways. I was very pleased when £250,000 of lottery money for community development was awarded to the ward just before Christmas. High Peak Community Housing is the arm’s length management organisation serving the Gamesley community; the ALMO management board, which in effect consists of volunteers, is chaired by the former chair of the Gamesley residents association. I was very impressed when High Peak Community Housing was represented at a local voluntary sector forum, which I organised with my hon. Friend the Minister for the Third Sector in my constituency just a couple of weeks ago.
I contrast that with what I overhead at a conference on local strategic partnerships about 18 months ago. Two councillors, who did not know each other previously, were talking. One said to the other, “I don’t know who these voluntary sector people think they are. Don’t they realise that we are the elected people around here? It is our responsibility to deliver services.” The other replied, “We don’t have that problem with voluntary sector people on our LSP. We don’t have voluntary sector people on our LSP.” Both those attitudes and experiences will, I hope, be things of the past, because of the extra qualities and value that can be obtained for services through working in partnership with the community and voluntary sector.
 High Peak borough council is acknowledged as a beacon council for partnership working and, in that sense, the league tables published by the Audit Commission, which have already been mentioned a couple of times today, are perhaps a little remiss. Although they look at a number of important ways of assessing the performance of local councils, they do not take partnership working into account. I hope that we can add the way in which councils engage with partners to those league tables of achievements. Indeed, my local strategic partnership has for much of its life been chaired by a voluntary sector representative, partly because there are two local authorities—district councils—involved. Therefore, the voluntary sector representative held the balance, rather than one or other of the local authorities taking control.
Good councils and good councillors see a strong voluntary sector, and a strong community sector, as an opportunity and not as a threat. That concept is shared across the House—I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire would agree with it. That is why he feels that the amendment is necessary, and it is a matter on which I agree in principle.
Local strategic partnerships have got to include the third sector. It is now, and will be in the future, an essential dimension for them to have, not least because the voluntary sector will be a key provider of services, and that will present challenges to the sector and to partners. I digress by saying that there are issues about local area agreements that will have to be addressed—perhaps in the Bill or in other legislation. There are fears in the sector that smaller providers of services will get pushed out of the procurement process by the bigger boys—those who can perhaps deliver a county-wide service. There may be an organisation that delivers a county-wide service in the next county.
There has to be a continuing role for local service delivery and local partners. That is why I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to making local area agreements the norm for the contractual basis of service delivery by partners such as those in the voluntary sector. Putting local area agreements on to a stronger statutory basis, as is called for in the LGA’s briefing, would be valuable and is well worth considering. The way in which local area agreements and local strategic partnerships function should be subject to the local authority scrutiny process more formally than perhaps they are.
While I am speaking to amendment No. 126, I will draw to the attention of the Minister the briefing given by the English National Parks Authorities Association. The matter is not related to the discussion about the voluntary sector, and perhaps discussion of it might more properly belong in a clause stand part debate, but national parks authorities could well be covered by the text of the amendment. I hope that, if necessary, we can build in to the provisions the idea of ensuring that the development and management plans drawn up by national park authorities are not challenged or undermined by decisions taken in the consultation processes. There are national parks in both the Minister’s constituency and in mine, and he will recognise that nothing in the Bill should undermine how national parks principles are adopted.
I have some questions to put to the Minister. Will he ensure that national park management plans are fully respected and not undermined by the process? Will he put consultation with the community and voluntary sector on some form or other of a statutory basis, although not necessarily conforming to the wording of the amendment? Will he look at the issue of whether LSPs and LAAs are included in scrutiny procedures? Will he look at the pros and cons of having LAAs as the basic unit of delivery, and therefore of procurement?
We are yet to see what guidance comes out in relation to clause 81, and what regulations are presented in respect of it, and we will not see them in Committee. Nevertheless, the Minister’s words will be in Hansard and I hope that the powerful words spoken by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, and my own modest contribution, will enable the Minister to go away and think carefully about the matter and that perhaps the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment in favour of finding something about which we can all agree.

Phil Woolas: Let me try to explain to the Committee the Government’s routeway of meeting the objectives that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak and the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire have set. There are three main problems in addressing the issue. First, the voluntary and community sector, and the business sector, are not statutory bodies, so one has to take a different approach to them. Secondly, as constituency Members of Parliament know, the size and scope of voluntary bodies vary enormously, ranging from one or two people undertaking worthwhile causes in localised geographical areas to big organisations such as Age Concern, which in my constituency delivers more than half the social services for the elderly on behalf of the public.
 The third problem can be summed up as, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.” Some local authorities unfortunately display the attitude that my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak outlined: they see the voluntary and community sector and the business sector as a nuisance or a fly in the ointment, because they believe that they are not accountable as councils are and that they are sometimes the awkward squad. Sometimes organisations in those sectors are the awkward squad because the voluntary, charitable sector has an advocacy role, as well as that of service delivery. Hon. Members will recall that the Charities Act 2006 grappled with that problem.
If Mr. Chope were here, I am sure that he would back me up when I say that Local Government Ministers spend half their time listening to the voluntary sector’s complaints about councils and the other half listening to the councils’ complaints about the voluntary sector. That is the negative side.
The positive side is that we cannot deliver our agenda in local communities without the voluntary sector. We cannot involve people, or consult them, or reconnect people with policy, let alone politics, without the voluntary sector. We cannot get the innovation, the focus, the flexibility or, crucially, the trust of the public without the voluntary sector facilitating the relationship.
What is the Government’s routeway through the Bill? I refer hon. Members to the clauses on local area agreements and to future clauses on overview and scrutiny, on best value and on the duty to involve and consult, which is directly relevant outside the framework of the duty to co-operate with partners.
The amendments would require the local authority when it is preparing its local area agreement or a revision to consult non-statutory local area agreement partners. Clauses 81 and 86 provide for the local authority to consult
“such other persons as appear to it to be appropriate”
when preparing a draft local area agreement or a revision proposal. Using those provisions, we would expect local authorities to consult relevant non-statutory organisations and persons. In other words, that part of the Bill puts the onus on the local authority, or gives it the option, to consult, in a way that it sees fit, the non-statutory sector; but that does not satisfy the demand of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire who wants to be able to say that it should have to do so. I believe my routeway does what he wants while avoiding the pitfalls that relate to the fact that these are non-statutory bodies.

Tom Levitt: I am grateful for the Minister’s clarification and for referring the Committee to clause 86. Will there be a mechanism by which a voluntary sector organisation that believes that it is an appropriate consultee can insist on, or at least appeal against, a decision that is taken not to include it in the consultation?

Phil Woolas: The problem with having experts on Committees is that they ask expert questions. My answer is that I think such an organisation can already do so, but I will check on it.
I will finish my point, which I hope will satisfy my hon. Friend. What is different, and what is changing—I completely agree with the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire—is that the voluntary and community sector should be part of the LSP. Indeed, it must be part of the LSP under the guidance that results from this Bill. That is an important policy development, which the Government have discussed with colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the third sector. The LSP is subject to overview and scrutiny, and the LSP consultation that we held earlier this year and last year welcomed the proposal. There was strong support for the idea that the voluntary and community sector should be part of the LSP—it was stronger than I expected, given my scepticism, which I indicated to the Committee before.
It might benefit the Committee if I report that independent evaluation of existing LAAs shows that the voluntary and community sector’s role in an LAA is increasing. That is to be welcomed, and we need to build on it. What will that mean for partners who are not named as service providers and community representatives? The answer is that the LSP must represent the full range of service providers as well as the local community. It is critical that non-statutory organisations, including voluntary community groups and businesses, are part of the LSP and, consequently, part of the process for determining targets—either as members of the LSP or of its thematic partnerships, or engaging by other routes.
Another important point, which, I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak, confirms that my guesstimate was correct, is that if the body were relevant to the local authority, the local authority would have to consult or risk the consultation being invalid. In other words, it must act reasonably. If the body were to say that it had a right to be consulted and had not been—that is, to show that the local authority had acted unreasonably—it could challenge it.
I can go further; that is why I asked the question of the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire. In practice, it is often the case that the VCS is understandably and rightly represented by an association of voluntary bodies within the local area, an umbrella group that acts as a service provider to the voluntary sector and as an advocate for it—a channel. We have to ask, therefore, whether we could establish a process for duly constituted and recognised associations to be included as statutory partners. We would still have the problem that they would not be statutory bodies. Therefore, my intention is that such bodies should be included within the statutory guidelines. Indeed—if you will allow me to stray from the amendment just on this point, Mr. Benton—as part of the Government’s wider community cohesion strategy, which is outlined in chapter 6 of the local government White Paper, we state our intention to build the capacity of the VCS in each area through such a provision.
By including the necessity in the LSP, by including the overall duty to consult and involve, and by including in the statutory guidance the role that the VCS should play, we believe that we can build on what is already happening, and I can avoid the problems that I would have had in this Committee had I named the VCS and the business sector as statutory bodies. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South, who is a former council leader, and others here who have experience were nodding in recognition of that point.
I hope that that addresses the issue that the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire raises in his amendment, but I accept that the full picture will not be clear until we have debated further clauses, so I ask for his indulgence in that regard.

Tom Levitt: Will my hon. Friend address the matter of not undermining national park values?

Phil Woolas: I do apologise to my hon. Friend. I missed that point in my efforts to explain the voluntary and community sector issue. He and I share a boundary and share a national park and he knows of the importance of this issue. The national parks are named; they are a statutory body; they are a partner in this process that we have described; and they are local authorities. So the answer to the question is yes.

Alistair Burt: I appreciate the Minister’s remarks. As usual he has taken the matter genuinely and seriously. We look forward to the explanations on the rest of the Bill and the statutory guidance that the Under-Secretary mentioned may well do the trick. We will talk further with the NCVO and others, but I hope that we will find a way through to deliver what it is looking for. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Robert Syms: I beg to move amendment No. 89, in clause 81, page 55, line 3, after ‘being’, insert—
‘( ) the interests of the commissioners of general medical services;
( ) any guidance issued by the Director of Public Health;
( ) any guidance issued by the Chief Medical Officer;’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 90, in clause 81, page 55, line 11, after ‘authorities)’, insert
‘the Director of Public Health, the Chief Medical Officer’.

Robert Syms: These amendments pick up the theme of proper consultation. The reference to the director of public health and the chief medical officer could be described as the dead turkey part of the Bill. I should be interested to learn why these amendments are totally misguided. Perhaps the Minister will give us the benefit of his advice.

Phil Woolas: The effect of amendment No. 89 would be that the local authority would have to have regard to the interests of the commissioners of general medical services, to any guidance issued by the director of public health and to any guidance issued by the chief medical officer when it is preparing its local area agreement. The effect of amendment No. 90 would be that the Secretary of State, before issuing his guidance, would have to consult the director of public health and the chief medical officer rather than just
“such representatives of local government (including representatives of partner authorities) and such other persons (if any) as he considers appropriate.”
There is already a link in this Bill between the persons named in the amendment and the process of negotiating local area agreements. Primary care trusts are commissioners of general medical services and they must themselves have regard to guidance issued by the director of public health and the chief medical officer. Primary care trusts are included in the list of partner authorities in clause 79(2)(i), and clause 81(2)(b) states that a responsible local authority must co-operate with each partner authority.
It will therefore be through the primary care trust, as the commissioner of general medical services, and its negotiations with responsible local authorities and other partners, that any guidance issued by the directors of public health and the chief medical officer will be taken into account when targets relating to health matters are being negotiated. That model fits in with our devolutionary approach because it works through the PCTs.
The serious point is that the goals and the targets of the general medical services and the director of public health are very important to local authorities in working for their communities. We are talking here about longevity, heart and lung disease and ensuring that all the partners move towards promoting good health. It strikes at the heart of why partnership is important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford pointed out, the activities of a school through the provision of meals, fruit, exercise and sports can have a huge impact. It can have a bigger impact on public health in the long run than the direct work of the acute services in the hospital, for example.
The hon. Member for Poole makes a valid point, but we believe that we can cover it through the primary care trust, which now has 80 per cent. coterminosity in this country due to the sensible reorganisation of the health services that we undertook in consultation with the Department of Health before the framework was put into place. That is the answer to the question.

Robert Syms: I thank the Minister for his answer. Having reflected carefully on what he said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Alistair Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in clause 81, page 55, line 4, at end insert—
‘(iii) the comprehensive area assessment which shall be phased in to coincide with the commencement date for Chapter 1 of this Act’.
The amendment takes us in a slightly different direction. It deals with the comprehensive area assessment, its timing and the need to phase it in as soon as possible. With the transition in local area agreements expected to begin in April 2008, it is most disappointing that the supporting comprehensive area assessment system for measuring progress is not due to be introduced until April 2009.
To deliver, the local area agreement must be, as promised, streamlined and less bureaucratic. We believe that running an old-style, heavy-handed performance framework alongside the new approach will be cumbersome and could inhibit success. We therefore agree with the LGA that there would be a significant advantage to introducing the mutually reinforcing elements of the new framework at the same time. The LGA is happy to work with Government and the regulators to ensure that time scales are met, and hopes that the Ministers will reconsider the measures.
 I spoke today to Steve Bundred of the Audit Commission. He is not particularly keen on the amendment, as he believes that there is a good reason for the separation of the two elements. I am not convinced—I think that the LGA makes a reasonable case—but it is an area of dispute, and I put it on record to be fair. It was good to meet Steve Bundred to discuss it.
The LGA’s point is straightforward. It is always difficult to operate two systems. It believes that there would be an advantage in bringing the date forward, and I tabled the amendment to test the Minister’s thinking. Does he think that further negotiations on the matter might be the way forward, rather than drawing a line under it now?

Tom Brake: I rise briefly to say that I think that the amendment is sensible if there is an opportunity to synchronise the two elements. As the LGA, the representative body of the councils responsible for delivering it, supports the amendment, I shall listen carefully to the Minister. If he does not believe that it is a sensible way forward, what explanation can he give?

Phil Woolas: I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire for moving the amendment, because it gives me the opportunity to do exactly what he invited me to do. The Government’s attitude is that if we could do what he wants, we would. Our reasoning is that 1 April 2008 is an important beginning point for local government in the new framework that the Bill will introduce if it is agreed by Parliament. It will be the beginning of the three-year financial settlement and of the new, so-called refreshed local area agreements, and will herald the beginning of the new performance assessment framework, to which we shall come.
The amendment’s effect of bringing the date forward would mean that a comprehensive area assessment would have to be phased to coincide with the coming into force of the local area agreement clauses, which is fixed in clause 175 for two months after Royal Assent. The Audit Commission will be working with other inspectorates in the next two years to develop a detailed methodology for the comprehensive area assessment so that it can be introduced by 2009. The comprehensive area assessment is a crucial piece of local evidence—we shall come to debate that matter. In essence, it will judge the whole place—the whole town, city or county—as well as the institution. It will consider the range of partners and service delivery and the outcome from the citizen’s point of view, and will make for interesting reading when it is published.
 The hon. Gentleman accepts the Audit Commission’s robustness and independence. He does not need to say so; I know that he does. The commission was established in 1981 as part of the package to bear down on local government’s alleged profligacy with public money. I am keen to ensure that its core function is re-emphasised. Its main job is to keep the books balanced, and to ensure that expenditure is controlled properly and value for money is delivered. That will work towards the introduction of the new regime. I have stated that it would be better if we could have started the data collection from 1 April 2008, but I am advised that that is not possible, and it would be wrong to force such a change. Having said that, I believe that I have honestly and fairly answered the hon. Gentleman’s question about our attitude.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the Minister. I think that local authorities will be disappointed, but I take the point that he genuinely believes that it is not physically possible to do what he and the local authorities want to do. If that is the case, nothing more needs to be said, beyond congratulating Bedfordshire county council on its fine performance in the comprehensive performance assessment today. It moved up a level and has been deemed to be improving well. I wanted to put that on the record, but have not had a chance to do so until now.

Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way because it gives me an opportunity to commend Sutton council, which achieved a four-star rating.

Alistair Burt: Are there any other takers for this opportunity?
 Tom Levitt rose—
 Robert Neill rose—
 Mr. Dunne rose—

Alistair Burt: Perhaps it would be in order if hon. Members found their own way to put their comments on the record.
We take the Minister’s point—the change cannot physically be made. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 82 and 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84

Designated targets

Robert Syms: I beg to move amendment No. 109, in clause 84, page 56, line 1, at end insert—
‘( ) The number of targets designated under subsections (1) and (2) shall not exceed 35 at any one time.’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 110, in clause 84, page 56,line 4, at end add—
‘( ) For the purposes of this Act “designated target” means a national target for economic, social or environmental improvement such as the Secretary of State may by regulation define.’.

Robert Syms: We now come on to targets. I think that we all welcome the approach of reducing the number of targets that local government must meet. In the past, central Government have always expected far too much from local government and, indeed, added a lot of costs to it by imposing targets.
We all know that in politics it is terribly easy to keep adding targets—to have a degree of target inflation. By limiting them to a specific number, the Government would have to knock a target out when they want to add another one. A core number of targets would therefore be maintained, which would set a higher and tougher test for those faced by local government and mean that we do not get a drift of more and more targets adding more and more bureaucracy. If the thrust of the Bill is devolutionary, we need to limit the burden on local government. Amendment No. 109 would help by insisting on a limit to the number of targets approved in the Government’s proposed arrangements. I could go on for a lot longer, but the hour is late, and I would be interested to hear the Government’s response to my amendment.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue—one that the Local Government Association has raised with the Government. I cannot remember whether it did so in the evidence-gathering session, but it certainly did so before that.
 The Government’s intention is that there should be some 200 common measurements—national indicators, in the jargon. I shall not mention the 18 education targets that were mentioned by the hon. Member for Bedford. Of the 200, there should be some 35 that are agreed by the local authority, its partners, and the Government. The 35 could be different in different areas, of course. That is the important point. It is the way to meet the paradox, faced by all Governments, of equity and a postcode lottery on the one hand and devolution on the other, while maintaining the right of an elected Government, and indeed—I would argue—the right of Parliament, to outline the minimum goals.
Why not include particular targets explicitly in the Bill? I want to try to convince the hon. Member for Poole of the Government’s rationale for not doing so. The Government do not apologise for the number of targets that local government faces. The figure of between 600 and 1,200 sounds huge, although it is less so when one considers the vast range of services that local authorities provide. Nevertheless, it is a huge number, and local authorities report that it is over-burdensome.
I find it ironic that hon. Members—from both sides of the House, but especially from the Opposition side—pray in evidence the comprehensive performance assessment star rating, given that is produced by the very performance review that is sometimes criticised. Such is the way of the world, however. I shall not go into detail about the own local authority, but it is doing well.
We believe that a figure of approximately 35 is sensible for the number of shared targets. That figure has not been plucked out of the air; it has been taken from a consideration of the nature of the indicators, and from discussion. The figure is better dealt with in guidance, however. To set the upper limit at 35 would not take account of the 18 statutory early years and educational attainment targets to which the Government are committed. In the White Paper, we stated that LAAs would need to contain those targets in addition to the approximately 35 nationally negotiated targets.
Clause 81 provides that responsible authorities should agree the local improvement targets in co-operation with partner authorities. The amendment would make the same provision. The targets will then be submitted for approval by the Secretary of State. Thereafter, if individual targets are of key national interest, they will be designated as provided for in clause 84. The effect of designation would be that such targets could not be altered without the approval of the Secretary of State, given that they are of key national interest.
To set out the definition of a designated target in regulations would substantially reduce the level of discretion for agreement of targets that would be available to responsible authorities and their partners. If we used regulations to define such targets—an area economic well-being target for reduction of unemployment, for example—those targets would then be designated in all local area agreements for England. However, it might not be appropriate for such a target to be so designated; there might be more important targets in a particular area.
The alternative would be that the Secretary of State would have to define from the outset, in regulations, exactly the sort of targets that would be designated in each area. That would be unworkable, and would lead to prescription from the centre. The regulations would inevitably be unable to cover every target that would be likely to be designated for a certain area. That would lead in turn to a real risk of the Secretary of State being unable, because it was not in the regulations, to designate a target that appeared in the LAA—despite he or she otherwise wishing to designate it. Incidentally, it is on that point that I think that the Sustainable Communities Bill gets things absolutely the wrong way round; unintentionally, it gives power of veto to the Secretary of State.
The consequence of all that is that putting into the Bill the figure of 35 would jeopardise a local authority’s ability to have the flexibility to set targets that were suitable for its area. I use the example of unemployment deliberately. If one were to say that Surrey, for example, should have to focus on an unemployment target and that Easington should not, most Members would reasonably say that that should not be the priority; there may also be examples the other way round. The effect of the amendment would be to take away that flexibility.
Putting a number in the Bill in the way that the hon. Gentleman described would be giving in to a temptation to obtain temporary reassurance. This legislation should be sustainable and long-lasting, and it may be that there is reason why one would want to have a different figure or figures, which were higher or lower.
I hope that I am not one of those Ministers who says, “Trust me and trust my successors,” because we will be putting into guidance the objective of setting out the number of targets that we wish to see achieved. In truth, because we are working on the 200 indicators, it is premature to specify a figure, which is why the Secretary of State and I say about 35, because, in all honesty, we do not know as yet whether it will be 35.

Robert Syms: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I will have to read what he said carefully in the Official Report and reflect on some of the comments that he made. I thought that he was honest about the fact that the figure might be 38 or 39, or 33; it will vary, depending on what is determined. This is a matter that we may return to on Report. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Alistair Burt: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in clause 85, page 56, line 27, leave out from ‘(6)’ to end of line 28.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 76, in clause 86, page 56, line 42, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 78, in clause 86, page 57, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 80, in clause 86, page 57, line 12, leave out
‘or additional local improvement targets’.
No. 82, in clause 86, page 57, line 20, leave out
‘or additional local improvement targets’.

Alistair Burt: The amendments largely follow the pattern of the discussion that we have just had, in relation to targets and everything else, so I will not overdo them.
Despite the Minister’s continual protestations that this is a mass devolutionary Bill, the equivalent of the tennis court oath for his Government, we remain concerned that there is some resistance outside. I would like to quote from a commentary that I found from Pinsent Masons, the solicitors’ firm that produced a comprehensive note on the Bill, which it entitled “Local Government Bill - A Night At The Local Government Opera”. It is written in a jaunty style throughout, and the fact that anyone can make fun of these provisions shows a degree of imagination not normally associated with property lawyers.
I welcome the contribution of the author, Mr. Nicholas Dobson, who is the national head of local government law at Pinsent Masons. I have read his submission carefully and he makes some cogent arguments about a variety of amendments, some of which we have incorporated into our thinking. His style is to be commended, but in relation to these targets and agreements, I merely quote his conclusion:
“When the Bill was published LGC”—
the Local Government Chronicle—
“reported that ‘Local government minister Phil Woolas has insisted the government has made good on its devolution rhetoric by legislating for stronger councils.’”
Mr. Dobson concludes:
“Nevertheless the LAA provisions”—
the local area agreement provisions—
“do look very much more like firm central control.”
We would simply submit that, in relation to targets and everything to do with them, that argument is reinforced, hence our interest in removing the powers of Government to add extra targets and to try to get more leeway in the Bill to remove targets.
We have had that discussion and remain of the view that there is too much central control and too many centralising targets. Until we actually see how area agreements operate and whether the Secretary of State continues to seek to impose her will on local authorities by having too much control over local targets with a national flavour, we will not be sure whether the Minister’s rhetoric is being delivered on the ground. We wait to see.
In the Sustainable Communities Bill the Minister wants the veto power of the Secretary of State removed. I am sure that I could have a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd), who is promoting that Bill, and ask him whether that power can be taken away. Perhaps the Minister’s concerns about this Bill doing things the other way around will then be assuaged, further encouraging him to accept our suggestion. That is all that I wish to say on the amendments, as they follow the debate that we have just had.

Phil Woolas: Were the hon. Gentleman to do that regarding the private Member’s Bill, that would take away one of my concerns. I do not want the Committee to think that the removal of that single concern would be the only change necessary. The direction of travel of that Bill, of course, is in line with this one.
In light of the manner and tone in which the amendment was moved, perhaps I should emphasis that the Government have not stated that every area must have the same number of targets. They might be different in different areas. We envisage that examples of targets being changed by revision, using the powers that we are asking for in the Bill, will be exceptional. For example, if there were a national terrorist alert the Secretary of State might choose to direct a responsible local authority to prepare and submit a revision proposal, and he might issue guidance on the type of new targets to be included in it. One can imagine that that might well be the case for some of our major local authorities. Once the Secretary of State had approved that proposal, he or she would be able to designate any new target relating to security. By contrast, if local targets were added simply by agreement between the parties under subsection (6), they could not be designated in that manner. It would not be appropriate in the circumstances in my example for a national priority target to be treated as a purely local one.
On that difference between local targets and those that could be designated, when hon. Members think the process through they will find that their anxieties cannot be realised. The process has yet to be tested and there will be a learning curve for local authorities and Government offices and Ministers, but the amendment would change the process substantially, to the detriment of the flexibility of local targets. That is why it says on my piece of paper here, “Resist.”

Alistair Burt: I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86

Designated targets: revision proposals

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in clause 86, page 57, line 10, at end insert—
‘(iii) Members of Parliament for the area.’.
The key point of the amendment is to explore whether it would be possible to put in the Bill an opportunity for Members of Parliament to be involved in the revision of local area agreements or refer matters to overview and scrutiny committees.
We must not fall into the trap of believing that local authorities uniformly welcome attention from MPs on their operation, effectiveness and service delivery. I should say in passing that I have an excellent relationship with the four-star, and improving well, Durham county council, but I recognise that that is not always the case. In any case, we should not rely on individual good will to secure a role for Members of Parliament.
I should be grateful if the Minister would consider whether a formal mechanism is needed to ensure that Members can not only get involved in the revision of local area agreements but refer matters affecting their constituents to the overview and scrutiny panels.

Phil Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for raising this important matter. The role of Members of Parliament in this process has been debated and is rising up the policy agenda. Indeed, two local strategic partnerships in England are chaired by MPs and many others involve their MPs, formally and informally. However, as my hon. Friend recognised, MPs fall into a unique position. I always believe that, outside this place, we have influence but not power and that, inside it, we have one 650th of power, although somebody once said that there is a first among equals—but I am not going there.
Our unique status as legislators and MPs bears on the attitude to the amendment. Members of Parliament have experience both of the issues faced by local people and an understanding of the key national priorities. The Bill does not preclude any involvement for hon. Members in their localities’ local area agreement. I expect that MPs will have a significant influence in the establishment of the 35 or so targets for their areas. Members of Parliament are, perhaps, unique in having an overview of the whole place, not of an individual institution, which is the important thing that we bring to the table.
The amendment would introduce a formal role, laid in statute, for MPs in the LAA process with the effect that, when a responsible authority prepared a revision proposal, it would have to consult the MPs for the area covered by the LAA, as well as consulting each partner authority and such other persons as appear to it to be  appropriate. We should not accept hon. Members being placed in a position where they must be consulted by their local authorities every time a revision proposal is being prepared. That is not in the spirit of the Bill. The decision about whether to consult MPs should be left, at that level of the process, to the discretion of the responsible authority and its elected members. It would not always be practical for MPs to be consulted, because MPs and their local elected members may not take the same position on local and national issues.
I can give some backing to my hon. Friend on the revision proposals, which require the approval of the Secretary of State, thereby ensuring that a mechanism is already in place to ensure that the national perspective is represented. In addition, the Secretary of State is accountable to Parliament through the processes available to MPs, including the normal questioning, tabling motions and the rights and privileges that we have. That power exists.
The decision about whether to place the MP in a formal consultation role would change the relationship between the statutory bodies and ourselves. People in future might wish to go that way. The process that the Bill sets in place gives greater strategic powers to local authorities and their areas and, inevitably, challenges the roles of the MP, the back-bench councillor and the executive member. To include a Member of Parliament in a statutory consultation at this stage would create not just policy difficulties, but legal difficulties, given that we are the legislators that ultimately hold to account the local area agreements. My hon. Friend might find herself inadvertently in a worse position than she intended.
 The policy of the Government and my Department is that, irrespective of party political persuasions, Members of Parliament should be involved, both formally and informally, with local authorities and other statutory bodies. That is part of our democracy. Most authorities and statutory bodies accept that that is quite right and proper. Indeed, good authorities welcome such involvement and recognise that, even when the relationship between the Member of Parliament and the local authority is fraught, it is part and parcel of our democracy, and that we should approach that fairly. I take very seriously indeed—as does the Secretary of State—any example of a local authority that does not facilitate the full involvement of its Member of Parliament in policy decisions. That is not a partisan point, but a point made on behalf of Parliament.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I thank the Minister for that response. I will not press the amendment to a vote at present. What I am trying to achieve is that, somewhere in the Bill, there will be a steer to local authorities that they should, as a matter of good practice, involve Members of Parliament in advising the local area agreement and in providing an overview of scrutiny. I should be very grateful if that issue could be looked at further. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 87 to 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 92

Reference of matter by councillor to overview and scrutiny committee

Bob Neill: I beg to move amendment No. 139, in clause 92, page 60, leave out lines 43 to 45.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 10—Local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters
‘(1) Section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48) (local authority scrutiny of crime and disorder matters) is amended as follows.
(2) Omit subsections (3) to (7).
(3) In subsection (8) omit “or (7)”.
(4) In subsection (11) omit the definition of “local crime and disorder matters.”.’.

Bob Neill: I shall be as brief as I can in the light of the hour—or the declining light if I am looking out of the window. Our concern both with the amendment and the new clause, which is the other part of the package to achieve the desired result, is that if we go down the current route there will be two schemes for community calls for action—one in relation to crime and disorder issues and one in relation to other issues—and we do not see the logic in that. Very frequently, the sort of issues that are likely to be raised with councillors at the moment and that give rise to community calls for action will overlap between the two schemes. It is not very easy or practical to say that this is a crime and disorder issue and this, for example, is an environment or transport issue—frequently, the two will overlap.
May I give a simple example from my own constituency that applies elsewhere, including across outer London? There is regrettably a problem with youth disorder on buses in London. That can often spill over into bus stops and the surrounding areas. One can readily conceive of scenarios in which people who face that problem in a particular locality might wish to invoke a community call for action. Although that is an issue of disorder, it is also one that involves transport and possibly graffiti, vandalism and damage to the environment as well.
It is not very sensible therefore to require councils to go through two processes to achieve the desired result. If they use the proposals in the Bill, I suppose it could be ruled out of order on the grounds that it is essentially a policing issue. However, if the criminal justice procedures are used, the matter could be related to disorder on buses or damage to buses, and then one may ask where does it stand together? That is a pretty obvious example that many of us would encounter.
It also seems anomalous, if one looks at the very helpful briefing that has been prepared by the Local Government Association, that not only would there be two schemes, but some slightly different criteria in section 19 of the Police and Justice Act 2001 from those outlined in the Bill. There are different criteria for what the issue applies to, who can raise it, and what the powers are. Most particularly, there is no power under the Police and Justice Act for councillors to use any delegated power to try to resolve the issue themselves. That seems surprising, given the desire to resolve as much as we can locally and to enhance the role of the local councillor.
It is also odd that the Police and Justice Act scheme does not apply to county councils. What is the logic of that? When we think that through, we realise that issues could arise in which it would be appropriate for a county council to get involved. That might not be the most obvious case; probably the district or borough council is the usual first port of call, but I am not sure about what the logical distinction is. In a nutshell, it would be sensible to bring this together.
Another sensible point made by the LGA is that, as well as encouraging the local resolution of issues, the Police and Justice Act provisions allow an appeal tothe council executive if the council declines to refer the issue to overview in the scrutiny committee. That does not seem to apply in the Bill, so why should it be different from any logical point of view?
 One could argue that the PJA provisions potentially give too wide a scope for the vexatious and the frivolous appeal. We all have people in our constituencies who are never going to be satisfied with anything. Do we really want to put council officers, perhaps council executives, in the position of having to do an awful lot of work to protect the scrutiny committee from being burdened with that? That is not perhaps a crucial matter, but the distinction does not seem logical, whatever the justification for the appeal process.
I ask the Government to resolve those anomalies, and it seems to us on balance that the scheme proposed in the Bill would be better applied across the piece. That would certainly be a lot easier, because residents themselves would have a one-stop scheme for initiating a period of call for action. I should have thought that sensible and in the interests of what the Government want to achieve.

Patrick Hall: You might, Mr. Benton, rule me out of order, but I should like to raise a couple of other matters on the clause. We are now concentrating solely on the amendment.

Joe Benton: If they are general matters that arise from the clause, we shall wait until clause stand part debate.

Angela Smith: I welcome the comments made by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. I understand his desire to have some of what he calls logic in the process. Perhaps when I have spoken and explained the process superficially—to use the word of the day—it will be logical, and there are good reasons why there will be two different processes.
The hon. Gentleman has already explained that taking amendment No. 139 with new clause 10 would have the effect of bringing in community calls for action under the crime and disorder matters, in line with local government matters. There are important differences between the two, for good reasons. In the former—the crime and disorder matters—any person who lives or works in the area can initiate the process known as a community call for action. All that they need to do is ask the councillor who represents them to consider it a crime and disorder matter. The councillor is then under a duty to respond to that matter, and can refer it to one of the committees that he thinks appropriate.
 Crime and disorder and transport are the two examples that the hon. Gentleman gave, so the matter could be addressed by different committees. The councillor’s duty is to respond to the member of the ward—his or her constituent—to say what action the councillor is going to take. It is not just a matter of being able to refer to one committee. The councillor has the power to refer to the crime and disorder committee, but he or she could go to the transport committee and look at both issues at the same time.
Even if no one has asked them to do so, councillors can refer matters to a crime and disorder committee by virtue of the fact that they have perceived a problem in that area. If a councillor declines to defer the matter, the individual who has raised it can, under the local authority operating set of arrangements, refer it to the executive of the authority, which places the person under a similar duty to consider the issue and gives him the option to refer the matter to the crime and disorder committee.
The local government matter is more simple. The only person with power to refer it is the councillor. That puts an onus on the councillor. In our evidence-based sittings, the hon. Gentleman must have heard the concern that was expressed about frivolous or vexatious matters. The councillor and the scrutiny committee are the backstops on such matters. It is a power for the front-line councillor.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the LGA. When it gave evidence to the Committee, it said that it would like the two matters aligned. There is a difference between a councillor who is directly elected to a body and a councillor who is not directly elected. The hon. Gentleman is right in that the local government proposals that we are putting forward mean that a councillor at any level, including a county councillor, can refer the matter. It is important that the councillor has other means by which to deal with the matter under the usual council process, other than by referring it to overview and scrutiny.
Although I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, I shall resist his proposals. The Police and Justice Act 2006 received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006. Its provisions have not even come into force. Parliament decided recently that it wanted community calls for action under the Act to be dealt with in such a way, so there would have to be extraordinarily good reasons to wipe it away and change the process before it has even started to take place. Parliament is not really keen to undo what it has only just done.
The second positive argument centres on the nature of the problems that the Police and Justice Act is intended to address, such as community safety. Whether to align the two matters was considered; on balance, it is reasonable to have a more stringent process in place in respect of crime and disorder, in particular to enable individual citizens to force the pace of change if they need to do so or to force the issue when community safety and crime and disorder are at stake. I hope that, in light of my explanation, the hon. Gentleman will understand why I am not minded to change matters at this stage. He is smiling at me benignly, so I think that that means he is in agreement.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for her response. I am tempted to say that repealing statutory provisions that have not come into force, let alone been used, is not without precedent. None the less, and despite the fact that my mother is now disappointed in this Committee and as well as in the Committee that discussed the Greater London Authority Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Patrick Hall: I should be grateful for a couple of points of clarification. Would local government matters that a member of a council can refer to the overview and scrutiny committees include those subcontracted to other bodies outside the local authority? In other words, would scrutiny committees be able to have oversight over such activities if they were referred to them?
Subsection (11) refers to matters that could be excluded from oversight but, under paragraph (b), it seems that anything could be excluded. Is that not too widely drawn?

Angela Smith: My hon. Friend asked whether contracted services will be included. Yes, anything that affects the service to the citizen from local government will be raised with the citizen’s councillor, in the same way that people currently raise similar issues with their councillor. That gives the councillor the opportunity to raise the matter with the overview and scrutiny committee, if the councillor thinks that that is appropriate. In terms of issues that can be ruled out of order, it would be for the councillor and the overview and scrutiny committee to make a decision, as elected representatives, about whether it is appropriate to pass the matter to the overview and scrutiny committee and for that committee to decide how much time it will give to examining the matter.
This devolutionary measure puts additional powers in the hands of front-line councillors and the overview and scrutiny committees to examine wider issues brought forward by citizens.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94

Powers to require information from partner authorities

Tom Brake: I beg to move amendment No. 118, in clause 94, page 61, line 20, after ‘to’, insert ‘the written or oral’.

Joe Benton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 119, in clause 94, page 61, line 20, after ‘authorities’, insert ‘, or those contracted to them,’.
No. 140, in clause 94, page 61, line 23, at end insert ‘and
(c) requiring officers or employees of relevant partner authorities to attend the relevant committee to answer questions.’.

Tom Brake: Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that I shall speak briefly to the amendments. Amendments Nos. 118 and 140 touch on whether the powers to require information from partner authorities extend to requiring those to give oral evidence. There may be occasions where written information is appropriate and others in which oral information—requiring people to come in front of the committee—is appropriate. [Interruption.] I see that the advice that the Under-Secretary is receiving is probably that that would encompass both things. It would be helpful if she confirmed that.
Amendment No. 119 is slightly different and deals with whether there will be a power to require information from contractors working for partner authorities. Again, if I can put it disparagingly, it may be necessary to hear from the organ grinder—the contractor doing the work—rather than the monkey. It may assist the partners, if that power is included, to require their contractors to provide information. I hope that the Under-Secretary can clarify whether my understanding of “information” is correct and whether contractors can be required to give information.

Andrew Gwynne: I want to be equally brief. I accept all the arguments made by the hon. Gentleman in respect of amendment No. 119, but it does not go far enough. As I stated in the debate on clause 79, it is not just about those contracted to partner authorities, but about a range of other organisations. That is why the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for Plymouth, Devonport, which, sadly, was not selected, suggested including other bodies providing services to the public locally.
I should like to explain, from local experience, why this matter is so important. Committee members who are groupies at Department for Constitutional Affairs questions will know that I am forever talking about freedom of information.

Joe Benton: Order. I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he cannot speak about an amendment that has not been selected.

Andrew Gwynne: Thank you, Mr. Benton. I am speaking about why amendment No. 119 is incorrect and does not go far enough.
 Last year, Stockport metropolitan borough council and Stockport Sports Trust decided to close Reddish baths. Those swimming baths were crucial to the health and recreational needs of many of my constituents in that part of Stockport. The sports trust was set up by Stockport council several years ago to manage and run all its leisure facilities and get around a range of restrictions put in the council’s way. Unfortunately, in the good old days of the committee system—to contradict everything I said earlier—any decisions taken by Stockport council leisure services committee would have been under the Local Government Act 1972 and access to information regulations, unless they were commercially sensitive decisions. All the background information would have been in the public domain.
Unfortunately, that is no longer the case for some of these organisations. I have been told by Baroness Andrews that
“Stockport Sports Trust is a company limited by guarantee and is not owned in any way by the council; it is a separate legal identity... there is nothing to prevent a local authority or public body, which enters into an arrangement with an external entity to have services delivered, from making it a condition of any contract or agreement that certain information is passed to the local authority or public body and into the public domain... However, as this has not been agreed with Stockport MBC, the trust is not obliged to share this information.”
I bring this matter to the Committee’s attention because it was not just me as the Member of Parliament for Denton and Reddish who asked for background information on how those bodies came to the decisions to close Reddish baths, but the locally elected councillors in Reddish. They were told in no uncertain terms that they could have no access to any of the background reports or to any information to which counter-proposals could be made with the Friends of Reddish Baths to try to run it as community management organisation.
Furthermore, after I raised the issue at Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions, I received the following letter from John Howarth, the general manager of Stockport Sports Trust, in which he says:
“I am at a loss to understand the length which you and your colleagues are prepared to go to deal with this matter. I feel that no matter what I might say to you it will have no influence on your views and, therefore, consider it futile to pursue any attempt to debate by correspondence what is now clearly an issue of national importance.”
So there we go. But that crystallises what happens when a partnership breaks down between, on the one hand, a local authority and locally elected councillors and, on the other, an organisation that was of its own creation. 
I do not think that the amendment goes far enough. I wish that it went further. I hope that the Minister takes on board the points that I have raised about Stockport Sports Trust. I hope that it makes him realise and understand why all these trusts, bodies and organisations need to have some control over the access to information. If that does not happen, all the wonderful work that we are going to do to improve scrutiny will be a waste of time, because scrutiny needs access to that information.

Alison Seabeck: There are genuine concerns that relate specifically to amendment No. 119. Although this is a devolutionary Bill, which seeks to increase local autonomy, it still leaves gaps in scrutiny and the accountability of the services offered and contracted on behalf of local citizens. The Minister will know that, in addition to the quasi-public or formerly public bodies that perform functions of a public nature, many organisations provide services on contract to local authorities. The voluntary sector provides a steadily increasing volume of services on behalf of local authorities, especially in social care. There are also private sector organisations that carry out a wide variety of work on contract to local authorities.
I am worried that voluntary sector organisations that perform functions of a public nature as drawn by legislation may not therefore be added to the list of authorities that have to respond to overview and scrutiny. A specific case can be used to highlight the nature of the problem. In R v. the Leonard Cheshire Foundation it was held that a care home providing accommodation for elderly residents, pursuant to arrangements made with the local authority, was not itself exercising functions of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act.
I have been lobbied by a number of organisations, including Sense, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, the Royal National Institute of the Blind and Scope, which believe strongly that any organisation providing social care on behalf of a local authority should be subject to overview and scrutiny. Those bodies are seeking to subject themselves to even greater accountability. I therefore ask my hon. Friend, when responding to the amendment, to consider how to ensure flexibility in the Bill to allow the widest possible scrutiny of the services supplied under contract to residents of a local authority.

Angela Smith: I thank my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington for their contributions. The Government are seeking to extend and strengthen overview and scrutiny. We want local authorities to act as leaders in their communities, engaging local people about their priorities and working with partners to deliver better services. Questions have been raised about services not provided directly by the council or its partners. How can those organisations be called to account? We have given the amendment serious consideration, but it seems unnecessary and potentially bureaucratic. We are concerned that it could undermine accountability.
 Our regulations will place the requirement to provide information squarely on the shoulders of the partner authorities that have entered into local area agreements. Certain authorities’ overview and scrutiny committees will be able to acquire from partner authorities only information relating to their respective local improvement targets. We fully recognise that, in securing cost-effective and high-quality services, partner authorities may contract out service provision, but it is partner authorities holding agreements with the council that will be accountable to the overview and scrutiny committee for the services for which they are responsible, including the services that they in turn commission.
It could be confusing and dilute accountability if contractors were required to provide information to overview and scrutiny committees. It could inadvertently encourage a culture in which partner authorities could shift responsibility away from the organisation holding the agreement with the council and on to the contractor. That is a grave concern, which is why we have addressed it in such a way.
It could also be an unreasonable bureaucratic burden on contractors to have to respond to requests for information from overview and scrutiny committees. I do not think that the amendment of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington would require contractors commissioned by local authorities to respond to overview and scrutiny committees—there is a gap—so I do not see why we should require partner authorities’ contractors to do so. I have also heard my hon. Friends’ concerns that organisations one step removed from local authorities will not have such an obligation. It is a bit of a repeat of our earlier debate about LAAs.
 We must be careful not to think that the list of organisations is exclusive and contains the only people who can be called to account by the overview and scrutiny committees. The committees will be able to investigate any issue, decide for themselves which inquiries they want to hold and ask anybody to attend. The Centre for Public Scrutiny gave an example in its evidence to the House of a scrutiny committee that acted innovatively to encourage a reluctant private-sector company to appear before it to give evidence. The committee was holding an inquiry into a service failure by one of the water companies that caused houses to experience a lack in their water supply for an unacceptable time. The committee found that the water company refused to attend its proceedings to put things right.
Hon. Members might recall that when my hon. Friend in another place, Lord Hattersley, refused an invitation to appear on “Have I Got News For You”, he was replaced by a tub of lard. In this case, the water company was replaced by a leaky, rusty bucket with its name across the front. It received considerable press interest. At the scrutiny committee’s second meeting, representatives from the water company turned up demanding to put the case before the committee so that they could have the right of response.
Although organisations will not necessarily be required to attend—only a limited number will be—overview and scrutiny committees will be free to invite anybody they wish. However, there is a danger that we could dilute the very accountability that we are seeking if we allow those with an agreement with the council to pass it on to contractors. It could have unintended consequences.

Alison Seabeck: I fully understand the point that the onus is on the local authority to find ways and means—and, if necessary, to embarrass, as in the case that the Minister cited. I must say that I was the person who rang up to give apologies for Roy Hattersley for not appearing on the show, as I was working for him at the time. None the less, the Government must therefore instil that sense in local authorities, give them the best practice and disseminate information about how they can get such people to give evidence. It will not always be a bucket. There is a worry that the best will comply, but the vast majority will not, and that things will therefore slip through the net.

Angela Smith: I understand my hon. Friend and she makes a very powerful point. However, it is not only the best authorities that will use innovative means. We have put in place a process by which certain organisations will be required to give evidence. In response to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, I should say that those organisations can give oral or written evidence—it is the choice of the party or organisation being called to scrutiny. However, the process could be extended wider to organisations other than those required by the provisions. An overview and scrutiny committee, with the powers given to it in the Bill, will fairly soon want to extend its role beyond the services provided by the council to any services that its constituents receive. I would welcome that.
I take my hon. Friend’s point that it may take a short while for members of overview and scrutiny committees to recognise their new powers, strength and authority. However, I am confident that, by placing a requirement on partners, and by making it binding on those that have services arrangements with councils to give information by appearing before, or by giving written evidence to, overview and scrutiny committees, we have addressed the issue of the powers that the committees should have. We are confident that the increased powers will be welcomed by overview and scrutiny committees and that they will be used well. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman withdraws his amendment.

Tom Brake: I am satisfied by the Under-Secretary’s explanation and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95

Overview and scrutiny committees: reports and recommendations

Amendment made: No. 134, in clause 95, page 64, line 2, leave out from ‘council’ to ‘county’ in line 3 and insert
‘in England, other than a council for a district in a county for which there is a’.—[Mr. Woolas.]

Clause 95, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Jonathan Shaw.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Six o’clock until Tuesday 27 February at half-past Ten o’clock.